hardfork

tomothy [9:12 AM]
joined hardfork

tomothy [9:12 AM]
Enclosed is some ongoing discussion concerning using EC to HF to 2mb

zarry [9:17 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy, along with @mwilcox, @coinspeak, @klee, @kyuupichan, @chritchens, @rajsallin, @lunar, @davids and some others

tomothy [9:17 AM]
I think everyone was added. If I missed someone, feel free to add them as well.

[9:18]
I figured having some additional eyes look at and review the aforementioned EC 8mb discussion from Peter would be good. I know there are concerns about preventing a re-org regarding majority/minority chain and ensuring continued protection for spv miners.

foorbarbaz [9:20 AM]
set the channel topic: https://blocksizeproposals.github.io


tomothy [9:32 AM]
I thought Bcoin is taking an interesting stance regarding BIP148

[9:32]
https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin/pull/205
GitHub
chain/mempool: implement uasf support. by chjj · Pull Request #205 · bcoin-org/bcoin
This is my initial implementation of UASF (BIP148, proposed by Shaolin Fry). It's pretty simple and sits behind a --uasf flag (other options for the mempool also exist, see comments/code in the dif...


[9:33]
I think it's even more concerning however, that Wladimir is not running core...

[9:33]
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bxpsj/bip148_and_the_risks_it_entails_for_you_whether/dhqmb4v/
reddit
BIP148 and the risks it entails for you (whether you run a BIP148 node or not) • r/Bitcoin
I think it's very likely that if there is a prolonged split, Core will abandon the legacy chain. But each developer would need to decide for...


foorbarbaz [9:34 AM]
did you mean to post those in #segwit ?

tomothy [9:34 AM]
no, i think it all relates to a hardfork

[9:34]
but you're right, maybe crosspost

[9:34]
at this point in time the issues are so intertwined :confused:

macsga
[9:34 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @klee, along with @karasako

tomothy [9:37 AM]
in hindsight, maybe this should have simply been named 'scaling' lol

tomothy [9:37 AM]
and then there is the merge mine discussion from oliver, i think that's a bit of a weird one. maybe bitsko can reach out to some of the other significant notables
1 reply 26 days ago View thread

tomothy [9:37 AM]
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6c29np/interesting_idea_lets_discuss_olivier_janssens/
reddit
Interesting Idea? Let's Discuss Olivier Janssens Proposal To Fork A MergeMined Chain - Even With Less Than 51% Hash Power • r/btc
26 points and 12 comments so far on reddit


foorbarbaz [9:40 AM]
set the channel topic: in hindsight, maybe this should have simply been named 'scaling'

tomothy [9:40 AM]
LOL

foorbarbaz [9:42 AM]
Content I wrote elsewhere;

UASF is an idea where people running a wallet decide to stop following the miners chain if the miner doesn't vote for SegWit.There are several important details here.
-    Miners can last much much much longer without sending their coins to an exchange than an exchange can last without the miners chain.
-    Miners would be embraced again by just voting for segwit. There is no way for miners to be forced to accept, mine or validate segwit transactions. There is not even a reason for miners to start running Core.

The only effect uasf could possibly have is for miners to vote segwit in, without validating it. Which means that if one miner includes segwit transactions he will quickly get himself hard forked off the net because other miners will happily include a transaction spending that segwit tx because it is an everyone-can-spend.UASF is a stupid idea. There is no way that exchanges will cut their own veins open by using it.
If it were to actually work, it would actually kill SegWit.


[9:43]
----
and; https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6byunq/if_segwit_were_to_activate_today_it_would_have/
*«If SegWit were to activate today, it would have absolutely no positive effect on the backlog. If big blocks activate today, it would be solved in no time.»*
reddit
If SegWit were to activate today, it would have absolutely no positive effect on the backlog. If big blocks activate today, it would be solved in no time. • r/btc
Should SegWit activate today, it will generate the same size blocks we have today. 1MB max. It would have no positive effect whatsoever on the...



csw [9:59 AM]
If SegShit activates, they will never increase Block Size to the level of demand

[9:59]
They will use this as a means to subsidise off block solutions and kill on chain scaling.


tomothy [10:00 AM]
Absent a strong united alternative by 8/1/17, I think it could be messy. Although we champion the death of Segwit, this could result in a shock to bitcoin's price 'stability'. I.e., We could see a similar price correction mirroring the mtgox event/SR event. I think the recovery would be fast and quick but it would still be disconcerting. (edited)

pesa [10:08 AM]
perhaps there is a united alternative underway

[10:08]
just not public

tomothy [10:09 AM]
if so, it's certainly not being moved forward by core, evident by the fact that lead maintainer is running 148...

checksum0
[10:19 AM]
Anybody can TL;DR? Kind of busy today :sweat_smile:

tomothy [10:20 AM]
oh shit, it didnt copy any of the important discussion stuff

[10:20]
ugh.

[10:23]
ok, trying the snippet again

tomothy [10:23 AM]
added this Plain Text snippet: BUIP056 discussion re: anti-reorg
Anyone following the BUIP056 discussion re: anti-reorg ?
[6:38]
I'd like to discuss a proposal for dynamically adding checkpoints, which I've posted about in this comment:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip056-increase-the-block-size-limit-triggered-by-a-support-threshold.2111/page-2#post-39031 (edited)
Add Comment Click to expand inline 724 lines

tomothy [10:23 AM]
tldr, 2 chains.

checksum0
[10:25 AM]
The merge mining stuff?

[10:26]
Or literally a minority hardfork?

tomothy [10:26 AM]
no, like jihan's looking for re-org protection with the EC stuff

[10:26]
sounds like they will push for 2mbs afterwards

[10:26]
was wanting to protect spv miners/wallets etc, realizes it's not necessarily possible

[10:27]
so trying to figure out how to setup checkpoints to prevent the re-org

tomothy [10:27 AM]
ultimately everyone recognizes we will have an etc/eth like situation, at least for a bit
 2 replies Last reply 26 days ago View thread

tomothy [10:27 AM]
since they want re-org protection, and from my understanding, this will cause a split

checksum0
[10:32 AM]
I really hope shits don't hits the fan this summer

tomothy [10:32 AM]
i think it's going to; they're pushing bip148 8/1

[10:32]
how can it not?

[10:32]
some stupid people will send anyonecanspend segwit stuff

[10:32]
it will get stolen

checksum0
[10:33 AM]
I received a 4ph shipment this morning + 1000 gpu + 75 th of scrypt miner this morning


tomothy [10:33 AM]
people will go rabid

[10:33]
gpu = eth?

checksum0
[10:33 AM]
+ zcash

tomothy [10:33 AM]
ahh

[10:33]
well, i mean if btc goes crazy in war; you might see a bump in zec/ltc

checksum0
[10:33 AM]
Really hope shits don't hit the fan now, I never did an investment that big in one go...

tomothy [10:33 AM]
not the worst hedge

christophbergmann [11:30 AM]
hi

tomothy [11:31 AM]
just reposted the bu stuff here, tomz had some additional comments. trying to get more info on bip148/149

checksum0
[11:35 AM]
Tomothy

[11:36]
I get fucking pissed off at that guy because he thinks it's all a fucking game

[11:36]
With his lonely bitcoin he thinks it's play money, if he loses 1 bitcoin, well too bad, it was fun

[11:37]
Real people really invested in Bitcoin don't think it's a fucking game. People like him are destroying what I have been building for the past 8 years

[11:37]
If he'd say things like that in front of me, I'd literally punch him out cold (edited)

[11:40]
I wonder how much I'd have to pay him to go away

[11:40]
I guess another bitcoin should be enough :joy:

tomothy [11:45 AM]
i know, it's what they do

[11:45]
can't take it too seriously

[11:45]
:slightly_smiling_face:

[11:45]
he gets excited when you do

[11:45]
its like star wars and like the dark side

[11:46]
don't give in to the dark side, it makes them stronger lol

pesa [3:05 PM]
just read this https://btcchat.slack.com/files/tomothy/F5GD7HP70/buip056_discussion_re__anti-reorg.txt

pesa [3:05 PM]
mentioned tomothy’s Plain Text snippet: BUIP056 discussion re: anti-reorg
Anyone following the BUIP056 discussion re: anti-reorg ?
[6:38]
I'd like to discuss a proposal for dynamically adding checkpoints, which I've posted about in this comment:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip056-increase-the-block-size-limit-triggered-by-a-support-threshold.2111/page-2#post-39031 (edited)
Add Comment Click to expand inline 724 lines

pesa [3:05 PM]
very interesting

[3:06]
thought crossed my mind, why cant CSW help them out? Looks like they could use a pair of extra hands

[3:06]
somewhere they mentioned "we are a small team" and this limited what they could do. Kinda felt sorry for them


freetrader [7:27 PM]
don't feel sorry for us :slightly_smiling_face:

[7:28]
help review code, write some, test some, run a node etc.

[7:29]
on the HF subject, best we can all do is strap in tight, because shit is going to hit the fan one way or another.


[7:29]
I think right now miners are preparing for every possible means.

[7:30]
The opposite side is willing to burn a lot of money to stifle Bitcoin.


freetrader [7:32 PM]
If anyone's got technical input on checkpoints etc., I am interested.
 4 replies Last reply 22 days ago View thread

freetrader [7:33 PM]
Even if BUIPyyy (dynamic checkpoints suitable for anti-reorg) doesn't get into BU - and there's a good chance members might not want it, perhaps because it seems too unnecessary -- I will still want to develop this feature. (edited)

[7:34]
I saw on the Wiki a note about some altcoins doing periodic automated checkpointing.
Anyone know of a coin which does this?

tomothy [7:36 PM]
Sorry, nothing I can think of off the top of my head.

adamselene [8:04 PM]
csw what are your thoughts on BUIP055 (increase to 8MB at height 488,888)?


----- May 20th -----
klee [5:15 AM]
https://twitter.com/BryceWeiner/status/865847867704958981
Bryce Weiner @BryceWeiner
Anyone with even a passive interest in #Bitcoin has made a decision.

The only thing to talk about is August 2nd.
TwitterMay 20th at 4:33 AM

[5:16]
so it is 2nd of August?

cryptorebel [5:22 AM]
August 2nd is probably the date the UASF supporters will commit blockchain suicide

[5:22]
I think Bryce is probably drinking the koolaid with them

klee [5:22 AM]
I think he opposes it

[5:22]
he is anti Core

cryptorebel [5:23 AM]
luke-jr is saying that by AUG 1st they will have completed UASF

klee [5:23 AM]
So HF needs to be done before then, right?

cryptorebel [5:24 AM]
I dont know, UASF may result in a chain split, and then on the real Bitcoin chain we would have enough hash for a BU block increase fork, as the segwit hash would leave the network for their alt coin chain

[5:25]
i wish HF happened yesterday, lol

cryptorebel [5:30 AM]
last i heard they are proposing new BUIP056: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip056-increase-the-block-size-limit-triggered-by-a-support-threshold.2111/
Bitcoin Forum
BUIP056: Increase the Block Size Limit triggered by a support threshold
I propose a BUIP056 similar BUIP055, but which I believe better may align with the requirements of miners: BUIP056 - Increase the Block Size Limit...


[5:30]
trying to appease some of Jihan's and other miners concerns I guess

[5:30]
hopefully we will see a push for something soon

cryptorebel [5:37 AM]
I guess Bryce does appear to be against the UASF, I was not sure because he did introduce that troll BUIP a while back

csw [7:51 AM]
8MB is a small start. 20 right now would be better


[7:51]
But it is a temp measure

macsga
[10:01 AM]
@csw is there a way to enforce this (other than collision ?)

klee [10:04 AM]
if someone steals the repo pwd and assassinate all Core (edited)


[10:04]
How man?

[10:04]
How can you enforce this?

csw [10:07 AM]
And if there was a group of developers. Ones with skill and experience.

Ones that worked for the majority of the miners and validated code and created tests and reports etc etc?

[10:07]
Ones that are funded

macsga
[10:07 AM]
we're getting somewhere it seems

[10:07]
:slightly_smiling_face:

csw [10:07 AM]
And who manage a repo that any can use but that is a new foundation code base?


klee [10:07 AM]
Ah ok

[10:07]
Totally agree

csw [10:07 AM]
And this is audited

[10:08]
And reviewed

klee [10:08 AM]
I thought macsga wanted a 'hack'

csw [10:08 AM]
And goes into test cycles before release


macsga
[10:08 AM]
no; not hack

csw [10:08 AM]
On real senarios and systems

macsga
[10:08 AM]
agree on this

klee [10:08 AM]
We are here for this CSW

[10:09]
patiently waiting for it

macsga
[10:09 AM]
so, the 1M question: ETA?

csw [10:10 AM]
Something like that would hit before any UASF would I think :wink:

[10:10]
But, who am I to say?

macsga
[10:10 AM]
hehe

tomothy [10:10 AM]
So if Uasf is 8/1/17...

macsga
[10:10 AM]
I thought so

tomothy [10:10 AM]
Have you bought plane tickets yet?

ger [10:10 AM]
An educated guess lol

macsga
[10:11 AM]
@tomothy to me?

[10:11]
lol, no... I'm still poor :stuck_out_tongue:

klee [10:12 AM]
I will be drinking frappe/beer under the sun, next to the sea, while Core sinks?

[10:12]
What else can I ask in this life?


macsga
[10:12 AM]
lol

klee [10:14 AM]
I have an idea

[10:14]
beach party

[10:14]
when HF starts

[10:14]
everyone in here should join

[10:14]
We gather at macsga

[10:15]
he has good sea there (this mfer)

macsga
[10:15 AM]
yeah, beach party

klee [10:15 AM]
fire

[10:15]
alcohol

[10:15]
music

[10:15]
Mac can you sing?

[10:15]
:joy:

macsga
[10:15 AM]
like a donkey


[10:16]
https://ainafetst.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/anes-autres-animaux-autres-insolite-galway-irlande-1728631855-925871.jpg (26kB)

klee [10:16 AM]
hehe

[10:16]
fluffy donkey

macsga
[10:17 AM]
:stuck_out_tongue:

digitsu [11:35 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @klee


phoenix
[12:37 PM]
welcome @digitsu , great to have you here


----- May 21st -----
simonliu [7:15 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @gregnie. Also, @jpjp joined, @tula joined.


----- May 22nd -----
digitsu [7:20 PM]
hello all

norway [7:22 PM]
hello digitsu! :wave:

bitsko
[8:25 PM]
welcome digitsu!


----- May 23rd -----
christophbergmann [3:54 AM]
hello all

phoenix
[3:54 AM]
welcome Christoph

adamselene [4:14 AM]
Have you used windump (windows port of tvpdump) for testing csw?

csw [4:16 AM]
It sucks

[4:16]
TCPDump

[4:16]
If on windows, use WireShark

[4:16]
Command line - use Linux

[4:17]
I used to teach it... I taught at SANS, but also for a few Masters programs in Oz as well as for the Police academy in their cyber area

adamselene [4:36 AM]
Yeah I decided to just set up my machine to dual boot again.  Going to dig some is machines out of the garage tomorrow to set up some tests.

foorbarbaz [7:00 AM]
left hardfork. Also, @bitalien joined.

tomothy [11:15 PM]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cyvpe/proposed_community_scaling_compromise/
reddit
Proposed COMMUNITY scaling compromise • r/Bitcoin
* Activate (2 MB) Segwit BIP141 with UASF BIP148 beginning 2017 August. * Activate [a *really*-only-2-MB hard...


bitalien
[11:42 PM]
"Activate a really-only-2-MB hard fork in 2018 November, if and only if the entire community reaches a consensus"

[11:42]
What a fucking idiot

[11:43]
Because the hardware that supports Bitcoin simply isn't capable of supporting 2-fucking-megabyte blocks until another 1.5 years?

[11:43]
And they are trying to pretend that the "COMMUNITY" is backing this?

[11:45]
And since they don't ACTUALLY want to scale Bitcoin EVER, when November 2018 roles around they will simply say "Sorry... the ENTIRE community did not reach consensus so we can't hardfork"

bitalien
[11:46 PM]
set the channel topic: 1 MB blocks are too large and should be reduced to 300 KB

bitalien
[11:47 PM]
We have the technology capable of supporting 64 MB blocks and BEYOND, yet these autistic Core devs are trying to convince us that even 2 MB is dangerous? LOL

[11:49]
Sure, we have a 170,000 transaction backlog NOW, and the price is rising NOW, but we can _totally_ afford to wait one and a half years to _MAYBE_ implement 2 MB blocks! :smiley::gun:

[11:51]
Bitcoin is on the verge of becoming the ultimate shitcoin... All the altcoins will simply fill in the void that Bitcoin has left because it has willingly refused to make _any_ advancements for years


----- May 24th -----
bitsko
[12:49 AM]
luke needs forked

checksum0
[12:50 AM]
Luke gonna fork himself with three of his trolls and 10% of fake node

[12:50]
Have fun alone with yourself

xhiggy [10:08 AM]
A bunch of them need some fork

klee [10:24 AM]
EOS solved the problems, no gas no EVM needed.
The only scalable blockchain with 1000 commercial dapps

[10:24]
(zillionaire)


----- May 25th -----
btcalbin [8:42 AM]
it's gravely immoral to engage in all that sexual UASF kissing and not fork


checksum0
[9:46 AM]
@klee Does EOS released any details on anti-spam measure then?

tomothy [9:49 AM]
ping zilli

checksum0
[9:50 AM]
Fucking bot put another fucking dump stop order

[9:50]
What is going on :rage: (edited)

tomothy [9:50 AM]
time to turn off bot

checksum0
[9:51 AM]
I guess yeah

tomothy [9:51 AM]
maybe someone hitting stops magically w/ huge instant volume up / down

checksum0
[9:51 AM]
Will have to check the logs to see what is going on

[9:51]
Volume, price, and spike are all high

[9:51]
I don't think that bot ever saw conditions like those...

[9:52]
Looks like it will need more training data...

tomothy [9:52 AM]
whipsaw ups and downs

checksum0
[9:52 AM]
It placed the stop order 25$ below the ATH

[9:52]
COMMON!


hostfat [5:02 PM]
is it true that Liquid boxes are protected by thermite, and that this will need to be defused for any update/repair?

this seems explain a lot about their adversity against hard forks.

are there more information about this?
1 reply 19 days ago View thread

tomothy [5:03 PM]
That seems like a stupid rumor

[5:03]
Incredibly so

checksum0
[5:07 PM]
So they want you do use a closed-source sidechain

hostfat [5:07 PM]
whatever way to make it, can it be a problem because of possible hard forks?

checksum0
[5:07 PM]
That requires tamper-proof hardware to work?

[5:07]
ON TOP OF BITCOIN?

[5:07]
Fuck them.

tomothy [5:08 PM]
Wait is there proof?

hostfat [5:08 PM]
I want to find more information about this

checksum0
[5:09 PM]
No proof

[5:09]
gotta drive, afk

zbingledack [5:12 PM]
Protected by thermite? Sounds like the lawsuit of the century.

1 reply 19 days ago View thread

bitsko
[6:15 PM]
I had read that 1, maybe 2 years ago???

[6:17]
a few months ago I was bugging people on the core slack about it.. couldn't get a straight answer... probably realized how retarded it sounds, if that is the actual plan

[6:18]
huh. https://bitcoincore.slackarchive.io/-/search-thermite/page-1

[6:19]
lol the search results are heavy on my trolling :awesome:

tomothy [6:21 PM]
Can't be real. If so. It's really stupid. I told Nichols to come over. Gonna take a nap but someone invite him to some stuff. Sleep now. (edited)

nicholat [6:21 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy

cypherblock [7:01 PM]
you gotta love a chemistry class thermite demo though.

hostfat [7:03 PM]
I really think that there should be a deeper study on Liquid and its hardware part

[7:03]
I think that it is here that there is the key to understand why they are so against hard forks

bitsko
[7:05 PM]
If someone can schmooze gregory sanders a bit in the core slack its possible he will actually say... possible...

[7:07]
lol are all of us known? hmm. tomothy... covert op?

[7:07]
:slightly_smiling_face:

checksum0
[7:10 PM]
I dont think I'm known under that username in core slack besides shinobibullshit

cypherblock [7:11 PM]
https://youtu.be/AckDlVGbB5s?t=1m29s
YouTube HACKADAY
Thermite Vs Laptop: Slow motion destruction



----- May 26th -----
jonald_fyookball [4:59 PM]
this thermite thing sounds batshit crazy

[5:00]
i dont even see how that would work

csw [5:01 PM]
The temp that Thermite burns at is incredibly high

[5:01]
It is used to start smelting processes

[5:01]
It is a shame it is low grade

jonald_fyookball [5:02 PM]
yeah but it also requires a high kindling temperature to start...how are they going to ignite it?

csw [5:02 PM]
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Thermite
wikiHow
How to Make Thermite
Thermite is a material used in welding to melt metals together. It burns at around and can melt through most metals. This wikiHow will show you how to make it. Select your site carefully. Make sure there is nothing that can burn within... (333kB)

weekend_engineer [5:02 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy, along with @daganb

csw [5:02 PM]
Magnesium works wonders

[5:02]
Small strips can be purchased and used a s a fuse

nicholat [5:02 PM]
thermite can't melt steel beams

[5:03]
oh wait

jonald_fyookball [5:03 PM]
but whatever sets the fuse off in the first place could be doused

csw [5:03 PM]
I made it when I was on my mad craze to prove one man could make a pencil

bitsko
[5:04 PM]
LOL

nicholat [5:04 PM]
read I, Pencil one too many times?

csw [5:04 PM]
I was in touch with Timothy

[5:04]
I actually did it

[5:05]
7 years work


tomothy [5:05 PM]
Did you make a video of this project!?

csw [5:05 PM]
1600 USD a pencil later...


[5:05]
Somewhere

[5:05]
ld blog is partially on the way back

[5:05]
One of these days I will dig it up :slightly_smiling_face:


nicholat [5:06 PM]
heh, the guy who made a ham sandwich from scratch spent $1500 and only 6 months; get on his level


csw [5:06 PM]
I like the Toaster project better

[5:06]
It melted

cryptorebel [5:06 PM]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
YouTube LibertyPen
Power of the Market - The Pencil


csw [5:07 PM]
Finding and grinding graphite with bronze tools is a bitch


[5:08]
I used a Japanese Raku kiln... But the think I could not do was information

[5:09]
If I did not have the internet, it would have failed


[5:09]
I was planning to write it all up - I may still do one day

[5:10]
Before I was Doxed and in the panic deleted all my stuff

[5:10]
The plan was to write an "I Pencil" 21st C version


[5:10]
That now, the internet changes all this

[5:11]
How it is all there

bitsko
[5:11 PM]
People accuse me of being smart, they must not know how to google...

csw [5:11 PM]
Step by step

bitalien
[5:11 PM]
Were you doxed the same year you met with Gavin and gave him that proof

csw [5:11 PM]
No, Dec 2015

[5:11]
Gavin was May 2016

[5:11]
Other shit

[5:12]
Gavin was March... May was other shit

bitalien
[5:12 PM]
Was the meeting just some sort of distraction to make sure that people would never believe you are actually Satoshi, and just a scammer looking for attention

csw [5:12 PM]
Satoshi will remain a myth, that is the best I can do


[5:14]
I have 17 degrees. 2 doctorates, 7 masters and I am on my 8th
I start my 3 doctorate this year.

I AM a smart ass and ppl do not like that.

I am also a geek and isolated. money = training to handle people. I did not have this in the past

[5:14]
This is not a brag

[5:14]
It just is

[5:15]
I like study

[5:15]
I have never been out of a university (form 17 0n)

klee [5:15 PM]
do you use any smart drugs?

csw [5:15 PM]
I was in the military, and in UNI

[5:15]
No - just lots of caffine

klee [5:15 PM]
haha me too

csw [5:15 PM]
I was working, and in UNi

bitsko
[5:15 PM]
Starting again from square -1... ever thought about a second alias to have greater reach with your ideas? The bias is insurmountable... at least until some papers make it out there...

csw [5:16 PM]
You are assuming that I do not have sockpuppets :slightly_smiling_face:


bitsko
[5:16 PM]
:ohyeah:

bitalien
[5:16 PM]
csw is actually neohippy

bitsko
[5:16 PM]
Noooo


csw [5:16 PM]
This is the I am me sock puppet


[5:16]
LOL

bitalien
[5:17 PM]
csw, how do you have enough time to get so many degrees. Doesn't a doctorate take 8 years?

csw [5:17 PM]
3-4

[5:17]
And I am naughty

[5:17]
I do 2 or 3 at once

bitsko
[5:18 PM]
I cant wait to get my life back in a place i have time for study...


csw [5:18 PM]
I cannot imagine life without it


csw [5:18 PM]
uploaded this image: image.png
Add Comment

csw [5:19 PM]
My first real University rejection

bitsko
[5:20 PM]
Heh. What a problem to have.

csw [5:21 PM]
I was thinking of amateur boxing... get hit until they accept me :slightly_smiling_face:


tomothy [5:21 PM]
Omg. LMFAO

[5:21]
They rejected you for being over qualified. I'm not sure what to think about that. How did you react?

[5:22]
That's... Wow...

csw [5:22 PM]
uploaded this image: image.png
Add Comment

csw [5:22 PM]
Waiting

[5:22]
PhD, Pure Maths at Cambridge

tomothy [5:22 PM]
Ah, you mentioned that before my bad. Makes sense in light of prior response

csw [5:23 PM]
I figure Cambridge has people I can deal with...Ones who do not fit in the real world



----- May 27th -----
travin
[1:40 AM]
Well, that's the first legitimate rejection letter I saw for someone being overqualified.


neohippy [2:25 PM]
funny since those credentials are a different craig from australia

tomothy [2:29 PM]
No neo, it's the same. If you scroll up enough in private you can see him with degrees and him in front of computer. It's the same craig

neohippy [2:31 PM]
fool there are two craig wrights from Australia, one has a middle name with different spelling, one has credentials, the other does not

tomothy [2:31 PM]
Oh the other here is a day trader if that's what you mean

neohippy [2:32 PM]
no, from Australia in general the country not here in the slack

[2:32]
this csw is the one claiming to have invented bitcoin, but bitcoin was a plagairism

[2:32]
and this csw does noty have dredentials

tomothy [2:33 PM]
This csw has credentials and is not claiming to have invented BTC. See private. Do csw search for better info so you can fully evaluate facts and arguments

checksum0
[2:34 PM]
Behaving?

tomothy [2:34 PM]
AFK neo, yard work. Do the search.

[2:34]
Yes.

[2:34]
Debating well

neohippy [2:34 PM]
bullshit tom, this csw is the one claiming to have invented bitcoin and he was using someone elses credentiuals to bolster that claim

checksum0
[2:35 PM]
lol :slightly_smiling_face:

joeldalais [3:51 PM]
the channel is about #hardfork, not who or who is not satoshi (i'm not sure why that matters anyway), keep on topic, ty :slightly_smiling_face:



----- May 30th -----
psztorc [11:42 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @bitsko, along with @hmr. Also, @neohippy left.


----- June 1st -----
bitalien
[12:44 AM]
It seems like we are reaching a tipping point in the scaling debate

cryptorebel [12:45 AM]
BUIP 056 or whatever comes out of it might have promise

bitalien
[12:45 AM]
The last couple days, it seems as if /r/btc has had a LOT more activity, and a lot of LEGITIMATELY pissed off people at /r/Bitcoin and BlockstreamCore


bitalien
[12:53 AM]
Also, I just want to say how ridiculous it is that SegWit still needs at least 80% of hash rate to activate. That's a very large amount, and I can't foresee it EVER activating

[12:55]
BU should honestly fork at 60% or less. 60% is perfectly safe. I think by the time BU gets a SOLID 50% for a couple weeks straight, businesses will wake up and people will start preparing for the inevitable fork

[12:55]
It will be game over if BU can get just 10% or so more hash rate

phoenix
[5:18 AM]
for anyone that still says that b/w is a problem to larger blocks https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf

phoenix
[5:19 AM]
uploaded this image: unnamed (2).jpg
Add Comment

phoenix
[5:19 AM]
uploaded this image: unnamed (1).jpg
Add Comment

phoenix
[5:19 AM]
uploaded this image: unnamed.jpg
Add Comment

csw [5:26 AM]
But I cannot run a $20 USD version 0.1 raspberry pie in rural Africa as a full node

[5:26]
:wink:

pesa [5:41 AM]
Kenya

im using a Telcos data bundle right now. tethering my phone $10 for 3GB for 30 days
Orange telcos modem bundle $35 per month for 30GB
where i used to live Zuku fibre $190 for 250Mbps Unlimited High Speed Internet

[5:42]
my friend Tim runs a full node in Nigeria


[5:42]
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-the-man-running-the-only-bitcoin-node-in-west-africa
Motherboard
Meet the Man Running the Only Bitcoin Node In West Africa
A Nigerian developer wants to start building the bitcoin network in the region. (113kB)

pesa [5:42 AM]
Tim though is pro-Segwit :slightly_smiling_face:
1 reply 13 days ago View thread

checksum0
[9:27 AM]
@pesa You are in Kenya?

[9:27]
Are you native from there or working there?

pesa [9:59 AM]
born and raised here
 3 replies Last reply 13 days ago View thread

checksum0
[10:07 AM]
You are like the unicorn Core says can't exists!


btcalbin [3:57 PM]
What is the limiting factor in nodes happening in W. Africa?  the bandwidth / resource costs of running a node, or people wanting to use Bitcoin in the first place?

checksum0
[3:58 PM]
Sure thing, we NEED nodes in Africa

[3:58]
I once looked at renting hardware their to run nodes in Africa but it was a pretty large hassle and I couldn't find any offer that made any sense at all to run a node...

pesa [6:12 PM]
incentives for running a node? i bet if running a node (not a mining node) paid BTC, we could see more

csw [6:12 PM]
Nodes mine


pesa [6:12 PM]
yes

csw [6:13 PM]
You mean a wallet

pesa [6:13 PM]
yes :slightly_smiling_face:

[6:13]
ive seen your discussions on what a 'node' really is

tomothy [6:13 PM]
Would be nice to have updated hardware

csw [6:13 PM]
Wallets help the owner of the wallet

[6:14]
What is there to pay them.

pesa [6:14 PM]
theres wallets like mycelium

[6:15]
then theres 'nodes' like the ones that are about 5k across the world that store copy of blockchain

tomothy [6:15 PM]
Those 21inc machines as well. They mine and are a wallet I believe

[6:15]
Not sure if they're still sold

hmr [6:17 PM]
I want to build a little weather station.  Maybe, one day, I could offer the data for sale as well.


pesa [6:20 PM]
I think every moderate user of bitcoin would benefit by running a full node and using it as their wallet. There are several ways to do this.

Run a bitcoin-qt full node.
Use wallet software that is backed by a full node (e.g. Armory, JoinMarket)
Use a lightweight wallet that connects only to your full node (e.g. Multibit connecting only to your node running at home, Electrum connecting only to your own Electrum server)
So what are you waiting for? The benefits are many, the downsides are not that bad. The more people do this, the more robust and healthy the bitcoin ecosystem is.

[6:21]
what benefit? i imagine regular users are comfortbale with mobile/desktop/hardware wallets

hmr [6:26 PM]
Is there a point, say a certain amount of full blockchain wallets, at which the network becomes too 'robust' in your opinion?

hmr [6:26 PM]
Or would it be ideal to have a full ledger for each person on earth or more...?
 2 replies Last reply 13 days ago View thread

pesa [6:27 PM]
hmm

[6:28]
i imagine there is an ideal solution where every person can verify the authenticity of the ledger by just checking a small part of it thats ideally small enough for a light weight device

[6:28]
it would have to be almost unnoticeable to the end user

[6:29]
i think ive seen CSW suggest something like this for merchant POS equipment

hmr [6:29 PM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

[6:30]
https://pastebin.com/xEr36iiK (edited)

[6:30]
it may be in there... haven't looked yet...

pesa [6:31 PM]
yeah. im waiting for what nChain will bring to the industry with that kind of solution

hmr [6:31 PM]
ah, thats not the one I was looking for anyhow...

pesa [6:34 PM]
link?

[6:34]
not it

[6:34]
by i recall what the implications were

[6:35]
i have an elec eng academic background, but thats faded over the years as i transitioned into human centred/user research/biz dev/trading roles

[6:36]
i only understand enough for a take away


----- June 2nd -----
freetrader [6:51 AM]
UASF? UAHF!

[6:51]
:smile:

[6:52]
Softies gotta learn. Life is hard.


movrcx [2:11 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy

movrcx [2:31 PM]
So I'm going to spend my day writing a new BIP to forceably de-activate SegWit. Would be cool if you all could review it before I publicly release.

checksum0
[2:31 PM]
Sure thing

[2:31]
Just post it here

movrcx [2:31 PM]
ok

checksum0
[2:32 PM]
I wouldn't worry about funding, there are a lot of whale behind big block :wink: (edited)

tomothy [2:32 PM]
Also if you get bored I think @jvwvu wants bip109+parval, :face_with_rolling_eyes: and no segshit....

jvwvu [2:32 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy

tomothy [2:34 PM]
I know BU is maybe working on an 8mb HF


[2:34]
Peter is here too. Sometimes. I'm not sure about tom z anymore.

[2:35]
There are a number of devs and people working on things elsewhere who stop by here. Mainly in the private channel

checksum0
[2:42 PM]
https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/870527842789892096
movrcx @movrcx
#Bitcoin Core 0.11.x-0.14.x 0day DoS for sale: 500 BTC. 100% effective at stopping #UASF and hostile forks. cc: @JihanWu @rogerkver
TwitterJune 2nd at 2:29 AM

[2:42]
If your tweet is real, it likely affect BU, XT and Classic too (edited)

joeldalais [2:46 PM]
seems odd to request payment in the currency that you're planning on helping to ddos ..

movrcx [2:46 PM]
I don't really care about the money...

joeldalais [2:47 PM]
ahh hi

movrcx [2:47 PM]
I also have a credit from ZcashCo for DoS security research as well. One sec I'll find it

joeldalais [2:47 PM]
if it only effects wallet 'nodes' then its just going to make noise and paint the pro-bigger blocks side in not a pretty light (edited)

movrcx [2:47 PM]
https://z.cash/blog/security-announcement-2017-04-13.html *I'm listed on the bottom*

checksum0
[2:48 PM]
Well crashing core on August 1st could be fucking great, somebody that might or might not be in this slack might or might not be willing to fund this initiative. (edited)

joeldalais [2:48 PM]
cool, but still, wondering about the effectiveness of ddos'ing core

checksum0
[2:48 PM]
If it is safe for big block client...

joeldalais [2:48 PM]
better to let them fork off

[2:49]
won't have a need to attack them

[2:49]
but hey, its a free market, so

movrcx [2:49 PM]
I'm going to work this for free most likely @checksum0


joeldalais [2:49 PM]
personally, i'm happy for blockstreamcore to burn :slightly_smiling_face: (edited)


[2:49]
so..

cryptorebel [2:50 PM]
joeldalais has good point, but also seems reasonable to protect the network also

joeldalais [2:50 PM]
well.. we're going to be publicly letting people know that uasf is a huge clusterfuck and how to protect yourself (e.g. how to do your due diligence)

tomothy [2:50 PM]
So, you aren't located​ in us correct? Or any western nation?

movrcx [2:51 PM]
Sounds good @joeldalais I'm working on a BIP too

[2:51]
It should cause some controversy

tomothy [2:51 PM]
Just, if the concern is valid, it could be not fun

joeldalais [2:51 PM]
but its a free market, so, i expect that segshitcoin will be attacked, and i'll be eating popcorn and watching with a smile :wink:

checksum0
[2:51 PM]
:popcorn:

tomothy [2:51 PM]
Maybe a j/k tweet?

cryptorebel [2:52 PM]
they seem to attack and DDOS BU all the time

tomothy [2:52 PM]
Yes, but it's not an identifiable actor

[2:52]
So

movrcx [2:52 PM]
I see a bunch of the Core devs almost monthly and they all know SegWit is a scam I think


[2:52]
I really don't understand why they support it


tomothy [2:53 PM]
Responsibly disclose, as a cya, Maybe a week prior to 8/1


joeldalais [2:53 PM]
its the almighty usd

tomothy [2:53 PM]
Or a month before even

[2:53]
And then allow market to act

joeldalais [2:53 PM]
it'll be a week or so before

[2:53]
week by week releases of "segshit is bad because ..."

cryptorebel [2:54 PM]
or disclose 2 days before and force them to push back the UASF date

joeldalais [2:54 PM]
then the week or so before a big arse summary, a "final warning" kind of thing

[2:54]
nah, we don't want them to change the uasf date

tomothy [2:54 PM]
I'm just saying State side, far lead timr on responsible disclosure could help avoid uncomfortable questions later

joeldalais [2:55 PM]
they'll have a couple months warning, not counting all the warnings everyone here has been saying for years (which is far than enough imho), then the 'week before' final warning

[2:55]
after that let the lemmings jump

cryptorebel [2:55 PM]
yeah im kind of looking forward to their UASF blockchain suicide day (edited)

joeldalais [2:55 PM]
sometimes the hardest lessons are the best :slightly_smiling_face:

deadalnix [2:56 PM]
They don't support it. If they wanted it, they'd support HK or NY agreements. They value being in charge, not SW. SW not activating is the best thing that ever happened to them.
movrcx
I really don't understand why they support it
Posted in #hardforkJune 2nd at 2:52 PM

tomothy [2:56 PM]
I mean think about it this way. In America they arrested Aaron Schwartz for downloading free publications. No money was lost. Compare that to an exploit that causes monetary losses. I'm just saying cover your self

joeldalais [2:57 PM]
karpeles and bad functions/coding with gox.. i see a similar scenario

[3:00]
hm.. thing is.. not sure if they/blockstream could be associated with 'responsible 'guardian' of said funds' ... they always act a bit like weasels around this..

checksum0
[3:00 PM]
responsible guardian of the funds are miner

[3:00]
per whitepaper

movrcx [3:01 PM]
@tomothy I wouldn't do any actual exploiting... Coordinated release is good enough to get the job done :slightly_smiling_face:

[3:01]
Just having a 0day is enough to force discussion and that's really valuable in itself

joeldalais [3:01 PM]
@checksum0 wonder if that would count legally... whether it would be bitfury/anonymous miners (who actually mine segwit) or blockstream held accountable..

checksum0
[3:02 PM]
No clue, legality and me are not good friend. (edited)

joeldalais [3:02 PM]
@csw your thoughts?

[3:02]
@roger_murdock and yours

[3:03]
or whether it would be the exchanges who allowed the trading... especially if such exchanges label the minority/uasf as 'bitcoin', then its definitely them in the shitter.. but wonder if the miners/blockstream would still be held liable

[3:05]
blockstream .. miners .. exchanges ... where does the ball drop when it goes to shit .. i wonder what each of those entities think, where the ball drops.. it might explain some of their actions if they think they can do all this and have zero liability

tomothy [3:10 PM]
Yeah in this environment with both sides so angry and heated. Just thinking cya is important

jvwvu [3:26 PM]
why?
jvwvu
@jvwvu has joined the group
Posted in #hardforkJune 2nd at 2:32 PM

tomothy [3:27 PM]
Thought you were in this channel. Tried to ping you. Saw you weren't. Added you.

jvwvu [3:29 PM]
http://www.sideprojectprofit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ifyoubuildittheywillcome.png (262kB)

Until then fuck a hardfork, I can live with 1 MB and Coinbase Shift card

dgenr8 [3:31 PM]
@deadalnix They do value being in charge, and deluded themselves they could maintain power _and_ resist reasonable blocksize increase (edited)

freetrader [3:31 PM]
@movrcx :
is your public announcement today the first step towards making this exploit known?
have you tried some form of responsible disclosure with Core, and if so, are you willing to say what happened?

[3:32]
FYI:
I'm hoping that we will have some big-block capable Core nodes running by Aug 1.

[3:32]
Unfortunately these would be vulnerable as well, as I take from your messages

movrcx [3:33 PM]
@freetrader Yes it's the first step. Core knows how I feel about UASF and they don't care...

[3:33]
Honestly I sort of view them as a competitor as well (full disclosure)

onchainscaling [3:36 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @checksum0, along with @david

freetrader [3:42 PM]
@movrcx : thanks, and I look forward to reading your BIP soon.


pesa [3:53 PM]
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/870668141080260608
Eric Lombrozo @eric_lombrozo
@Truthcoin @francispouliot_ @movrcx @JihanWu @rogerkver I already reviewed several such "exploits" sent to me in private. They are all false flags.
TwitterJune 2nd at 11:47 AM

[3:53]
lombrozo bluffing?


[3:53]
he's become too loud and vocal of late

[3:53]
he changed

cryptorebel [3:55 PM]
its false confidence, anybody with credibility would be humble enough to consider all threats as serious, reeks of hubris


pesa [3:57 PM]
true

[3:59]
i suspect the whole lot of them predicated the future of their companies and consulting services on SegWit after investing time and energy

movrcx [4:01 PM]
@cryptorebel I'm a Mozilla Hall of Fame Security Researcher too... i don't think they did their due dilligence. (edited)


[4:02]
I definitely enjoy watching hubris get smashed to bits though :slightly_smiling_face:


bitalien
[4:03 PM]
What kind of security research do you do?

[4:04]
Do you know C++, and understand exploits like heart bleed?

freetrader [4:04 PM]
>Honestly I sort of view them as a competitor as well (full disclosure)
I guess you refer to Bitcoin as a whole, Core being the front line of it...

movrcx [4:07 PM]
Yeah I previously did red team government work @bitalien

bitalien
[4:07 PM]
That's cool, how do you even get involved in that

movrcx [4:07 PM]
Just apply lol

[4:08]
I have my own blockchain nowadays though

[4:08]
well i develop it i mean

bitalien
[4:08 PM]
Judy put my resume in an envelope and address it to "The Government"? lol

[4:08]
Apply where though

movrcx [4:09 PM]
If you're really interested in doing exploit dev for operational activities then it's mostly contracted work.

[4:09]
Having a security clearance is a hassle and I wouldn't recommend going into that line of work tbh.

bitalien
[4:09 PM]
I don't think I would ever work for the government, but I would like to learn about exploits independently.

movrcx [4:10 PM]
Come to a security conference...everybody is usually very friendly and there's workshops for all skill levels

[4:11]
I can point you to some self-directed resources to if you want to mess around


tula [5:38 PM]
https://btcchat.slack.com/archives/G5FFUS6E7/p1496434082708245 could you tell more?
movrcx
I have my own blockchain nowadays though
Posted in #hardforkJune 2nd at 4:08 PM

checksum0
[5:57 PM]
Tula, zencash.io


Pinned by cryptorebel
June 3rd at 4:43 AM Pinned by cryptorebel
movrcx [6:07 PM]
https://github.com/joshuayabut/bips/blob/master/bip-0200.mediawiki
GitHub
joshuayabut/bips
bips - Bitcoin Improvement Proposals



[6:07]
rough draft and doesn't include any 0day requirements

hmr [6:23 PM]
Ping everyone!!!a! All the coders!a!

[6:23]
:+1:


movrcx [6:55 PM]
They closed my BIP lol

[6:58]
fuckers i guess ill just need to send it to the bitcoin-dev mailinglist (edited)

hmr [6:59 PM]
what!?   :awesome:

movrcx [6:59 PM]
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/545
GitHub
Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment by joshuayabut · Pull Request #545 · bitcoin/bips
This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deploy...


hmr [7:02 PM]
I would give you thumbs up on that pull, but it looks like they blocked me :joy:


csw [10:12 PM]
Companies will pass the costs and it will be owned



----- June 3rd -----
btcalbin [12:45 AM]
That's absolutely hilarious what kind of sticklers to process they are when they want to be, when segwit was decided on privately ahead of time, the 2nd Scaling conference was a disingenuous complete waste of everybody's time that was just a press conference announcing segwit, a bunch of Core folks signed onto a pledge that was simply a quick and dirty email by Maxwell as post-conference wrapup that committed them to all kinds of action items none of which have any proposals to review and study, and then well after all this was decided and pledge, then finally the community got to see some BIPs when it was already too late!


movrcx [1:59 AM]
Well looks like I'm going to turn bip200.com into a thing. Getting some good support within the cypherpunk community. Stay tuned :slightly_smiling_face:


zbingledack [3:23 AM]
>The author of this proposal suggests that significant consensus altering changes should not be applied without unanimous support by the greater Bitcoin community (especially those outside commercial organizations).

ಠ_ಠ

"they vote with their CPU power" -Satoshi

Unanimity has nothing to do with Bitcoin. (edited)


[3:26]
>[BIP148] makes miners subject to financial bribery

Miners are always subject to bribery, though instead of bribing them you may as well just buy hashpower with the money. (edited)

[3:27]
Good to kill the UASF nonsense but I'd feel more comfortable if you understood these things.


klee [3:28 AM]
So where do we stand from here?

[3:29]
What is 'our' roadmap?

[3:29]
What will CSW & miners do?

zbingledack [3:29 AM]
Remove the cap

[3:29]
Let Bitcoin fly

klee [3:29 AM]
Will it be announced/coordinated effort ?

[3:29]
Yes, agree

[3:30]
I mean that Core has decided for it's move

[3:30]
What is the counter move from everyone opposed to Core?

[3:31]
People, very good friends, ask me what to do with their coins at Aug 1st

[3:31]
Hold is always cool but I want an optimal strategy

[3:31]
Dump UASFcoin assap?

zbingledack [3:31 AM]
Miners should wise up and lift the cap. They must if Bitcoin incentive design isn't a failure. We can help them reach that decision, though, both through arguments and through market mechanisms like futures trading.

klee [3:31 AM]
Wait until BU gets very low?

[3:32]
So it is futures

cryptorebel [3:32 AM]
segwit miners will fork off their minority chain, then that will allow BU to gain higher % hash rate on the real Bitcoin chain and hopefully implement BUIP 056 or similar for 8MB blocks

klee [3:32 AM]
Futures are not safe

[3:32]
because if I hold BTC (whatever chain) I can't get margin called (edited)

[3:32]
Futures = margin calls

cryptorebel [3:32 AM]
people like Trace Mayer and others keep saying that BIP 148 chain will win and cause the legacy chain to reorg, but I don't see how that is possible

klee [3:32 AM]
Avoid them, especially in wild market like the HF one

zbingledack [3:33 AM]
Plenty of people will enjoy the futures market. Most won't play, and that is fine.

klee [3:34 AM]
I see REKT people

[3:34]
:smile:

zbingledack [3:34 AM]
Always ;)

klee [3:34 AM]
My plan is either of the two:

[3:34]
1) Stay in btc, have 2 coins in the exchange

[3:35]
dump CoreCoin if BU oversold and/or Core overbought

[3:35]
2) Stay in cash

[3:35]
buy the BU coin if oversold

zbingledack [3:35 AM]
Mainly the people who were wrong get rekt (edited)

klee [3:36 AM]
1 has the risk that both chains will fall very low in price and the winner will make months to get above pre-HF price levels

zbingledack [3:36 AM]
That rektage is what has been missing all this time. The idiots need to lose money and thus lose influence, while the smart ones gain.

klee [3:36 AM]
2 has the risk that BU will never get rekt and I will have to buy higher

[3:36]
Opinions?

cryptorebel [3:36 AM]
I was thinking to dump a % of my BIP 148 coins very quickly, but then again maybe its best to wait, who knows we may end up with like 3 different chains after it all blows over

klee [3:36 AM]
haha

[3:36]
scary...

zbingledack [3:38 AM]
It really depends on hashpower. UASF is pointless, but that doesn't mean miners won't jump on the Aug1 Schelling point as a time to activate Segwit (or bigger blocks, or both)

movrcx [3:39 AM]
How easy is it for you all to coordinate miners?

[3:39]
I can write some software if need but was looking to build some support for BIP200. I'm guessing it'll hit the news cycles next week.

zbingledack [3:41 AM]
We can talk to Jihan (Antpool) and Haipo Yang (ViaBTC) in the BU Slack

movrcx [3:41 AM]
I've been looking at block allocation between BU and Core and I think BIP200 is executable with only 33% hashpower.

[3:41]
There's going to be alot of panic and people will sell off naturally when they see the BIP200 heart beat signals. (edited)

[3:42]
After a period the BIP just reverts to the pre-segwit blockheight.

zbingledack [3:43 AM]
And Wang Chun (F2Pool) seems like he might enjoy the fun, since he says he only signalled Segwit because of DDoS attacks


movrcx [3:43 AM]
^That's a simplification of all that's going on but I think it's a good strategy. It hides how much support we have until after the consensus change.

cryptorebel [3:44 AM]
what about submitting it as a BUIP??

movrcx [3:45 AM]
Sure let me look into that..

cryptorebel [3:47 AM]
I think it goes through the bitco.in forum: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip055-increase-the-block-size-limit-at-a-fixed-block-height.2103/
Bitcoin Forum
BUIP055: Increase the Block Size Limit at a Fixed Block Height
BUIP055: Increase the Block Size Limit at a Fixed Block Height Proposer: Peter Rizun Submitted: 2017-05-10 Abstract This BUIP proposes to add...


[3:49]
makes sense to take steps to stop this UASF attack on the network

joeldalais [4:06 AM]
@movrcx, i've been talking to some miners (and others talking to them), but a bit of a hurdle with wang chung/f2pool, i don't have contact with him, working on it though.. but if anyone here does, then please feel free to give him a prod

[4:06]
and plan is to use a slightly altered buip055 to signal, and probably for activation, tomtomtom7 and csw were discussing it (edited)

movrcx [4:10 AM]
That's just to chainsplit it though right?

joeldalais [4:11 AM]
soso.. if they've already split off to uasf, then its more for 'activation', we'd be leaving no one behind at that point

[4:11]
still a fork though

movrcx [4:11 AM]
Yeah I don't think that's ideal. Either become the dominant chain or it's not worth it.

joeldalais [4:11 AM]
if they uasf off then what is left will be the dominant

[4:12]
assuming they're all on the same page

movrcx [4:12 AM]
Would there by any issues with running modified Bitcoin Core daemons for the miners? I only know the Core codebase but if I had some help could probably do BU

cryptorebel [4:12 AM]
BU won't probably activtae larger blocks until it gets majority hash rate, but BIP 148 might fork off a lot of segwit miners, leaving higher % of big block supporting miners on real Bitcoin chain


[4:13]
pretty sure many miners run custom implementations

joeldalais [4:13 AM]
honestly.. i wouldn't be able to answer you properly, but i can drop you in the other miner (support) channel for miners if you'd like? some BU devs there also

[4:14]
but ye, there needs and will be, support

movrcx [4:14 AM]
sounds good :slightly_smiling_face:

joeldalais [4:14 AM]
a dev/tech team will be provided to all miners, and similar support to all implementations

movrcx [4:14 AM]
Bitcoin Core is freaking out about the BIP btw

joeldalais [4:15 AM]
055?

movrcx [4:15 AM]
Maybe we are talking different things lol.

[4:15]
BIP200

joeldalais [4:15 AM]
got a link?

cryptorebel [4:16 AM]
https://github.com/joshuayabut/bips/blob/3259b05efe55c2d6146b438909b3909ec1c1739c/bip-0200.mediawiki
GitHub
joshuayabut/bips
bips - Bitcoin Improvement Proposals


movrcx [4:16 AM]
bip200.com too


[4:16]
i just registered that

joeldalais [4:16 AM]
ta

cryptorebel [4:16 AM]
seems like a pretty good idea to stop UASF

joeldalais [4:17 AM]
nice one :smile:

cryptorebel [4:17 AM]
they won't be able to ban non segwit nodes because they won't be able to identify them is what it seems

movrcx [4:17 AM]
agreed

[4:18]
so BU will roll into segwit and then after a period of blocks signal that they are reverting to the pre-segwit blockheight

cryptorebel [4:18 AM]
we definitely need to take evey step possible to mitigate this attack

movrcx [4:18 AM]
What do you mean?

[4:18]
Like detection of nodes?

klee [4:19 AM]
https://twitter.com/CryptXO/status/870917738902020096
Crypt-XO @CryptXO
BIP200: https://github.com/joshuayabut/bips/blob/3259b05efe55c2d6146b438909b3909ec1c1739c/bip-0200.mediawiki

#Bitcoin #FusckSegwit #FuckUASF
TwitterJune 3rd at 4:19 AM


movrcx [4:19 AM]
They could get crafty with it and that's why it might be better to run a modified Core codebase

[4:19]
I don't think they are banning nodes explicitly just blocks

[4:20]
But that could change

cryptorebel [4:20 AM]
yeah true, already roger ver said he is disgusing BU nodes as Core to prevent ddos attacks

joeldalais [4:21 AM]
just read it :smile: i can see why they would be shitting themselves, good job :slightly_smiling_face:


tula [6:12 AM]
still not understandind your motivation @movrcx. You have your own blockchain project, bitcoin is a competitor to you, right?

movrcx [10:06 AM]
I don't really care about the financial aspects of it too much @tula I'm mostly ideologically charged.


movrcx [10:16 AM]
Seeing Core and all of the commercial entities back off of a UASF/SegWit implementation would be deeply pleasurable for me to see haha


newliberty
[10:23 AM]
What would give me pleasure would be if all of blockstream and its backers came forward and confessed all, and asked for forgiveness, showed true repentance for their lies, equivocation, poor stewardship and wickedness, their malicious narcissistic selfish greed, and all the rest of their wrongdoings.
Then took vows of both silence and poverty, where they restrict themselves to only writing code.
That would make me happy.


tomothy [10:27 AM]
So signal segwit. Then rollback to non signalling. Segwit chain is now isolated. Do I get it?

movrcx [10:34 AM]
Yes and there's going to be a panic once nodes start signalling they are about to ditch SegWit

newliberty
[10:34 AM]
What would be the effect of setting the BIP148 version bit, but running other code, lets call it cuckoo mining to keep them straight.
The Segheads would see your blocks as valid because signaling.
If a true BIP148 block is mined, the cuckoos (and all the non segheads), will not build on it but will orphan it.
When the clients see a longer chain from a cuckoo than the BIP148 chain, the client will use the longer chain.

BIP148 clients could use a checkpoint, but it would have to be set dynamicly and deployed fast.  I helped the monero guys do something like this a few years back, and ended up with something called MoneroPulse using DNSsec for distribution

movrcx [10:34 AM]
SegWit will be a death trap


klee [10:34 AM]
So why do they insist?

[10:34]
Ignorance?

movrcx [10:35 AM]
They think they can pull it off I giess

newliberty
[10:35 AM]
Desire for control


klee [10:35 AM]
yes NL but don't they see the death trap?

[10:35]
Either we are wrong or they are ignorant or?

newliberty
[10:36 AM]
They can enslave Bitcoin.  They do not care if it survives, they just want it to serve ThEM.

klee [10:36 AM]
I mean that their manoeuvre will not succeed

[10:36]
ok they don't care

[10:36]
Still does not make sense to me, why someone wants to get defeated?

newliberty
[10:37 AM]
There is a small group deep in the echochamber that are true believers that it will work.

[10:38]
Maybe it would have if it were not for us, who knows?


[10:38]
I know that I was pretty much at the point of thinking that it was going to happen no matter what I did.

movrcx [10:39 AM]
It's not going to happen I think

[10:39]
They are all freaking out right now

[10:39]
I see most of the Core devs next week in NY too

newliberty
[10:39 AM]
Give them my regards :slightly_smiling_face:


movrcx [10:39 AM]
Will do :slightly_smiling_face:

klee [10:40 AM]
Don't forget to have with you the exorcist toolkit


[10:40]
and maybe a veteran priest

movrcx [10:43 AM]
It's going to be a crazy meetup I think (BitDevs in NYC) but I've got some non-Core allies in the space and they'd probably be willing to voice support the effort.

[10:43]
Peter Todd and I go way back; he was involved with the false rape allegations for Jacob Appelbaum (edited)

newliberty
[10:44 AM]
The media is a horrible place for a trial.

[10:47]
I've had some good interactions with PT, and also some horrible ones.
I think he means well and might be one of the savable ones.  A good adversarial thinker who knows the inside guts of what we're up against would be the perfect convert.  I wish you good luck.

[10:47]
He is also severed from Blockstream, or at least that is what I heard from his own mouth at Consensus.

klee [10:48 AM]
https://salt-pro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/may_the_force_be_with_you___yoda_flag_by_osflag-d9xe904.jpg (62kB)

newliberty
[10:48 AM]
Sometimes is it good to employ a warrior just so they are not fighting against you.

movrcx [10:49 AM]
Good point :slightly_smiling_face:

newliberty
[10:52 AM]
Just the fact that he is no longer taking blockstream money means he has some integrity.

[10:52]
When next week is the meet?

movrcx [10:53 AM]
It's Tuesday or Wednesday iirc

cypherblock [11:53 AM]
can someone give me the tl;dr on this bip 200 thing. Seems like there are details missing.

tomothy [11:55 AM]
It's a. Outline from my understanding

movrcx [11:57 AM]
@cypherblock I can answer any questions you have (I wrote it up). Basically the strategy is to avoid doing a chainsplit until it's time to depart from the crashing and burning UASF/SegWit chain.

[11:58]
Miners will just revert at a time developed in consensus to a pre-SegWit block height

[11:59]
It'll be as if SegWit never happened at all and prevents any type of replay attacks from happening

[12:02]
Softfork reversion signalling can cause a great bit of unease. Think about what will happen when the first block signals they are going to revert to a non-segwit block height. then think what happens when 10 more do. and then when it's 30% of blocks and so on.

cypherblock [12:02 PM]
hmm. but miners will be giving up revenue to do this, yes? And it allows double spending doesn’t it?

movrcx [12:03 PM]
The UASF chain will be wrecked and businesses that operate on it will be too

[12:03]
Miners will probably make a killing in this by all the double spends

cypherblock [12:03 PM]
I think UASF chain will likely fail on its own. Unless miners cave in.

movrcx [12:04 PM]
Idk...they have significant financial backing


[12:04]
After SegWit activates the banks will come much more visibly out of the woodwork

cypherblock [12:06 PM]
well I thought UASF seemed reckless. Bip 200 seems like insane. But maybe you are trying to do the brinksmanship thing?

movrcx [12:06 PM]
Yeah I'm trying to do the doomsday scenario lol

cypherblock [12:07 PM]
well if bip200 leaves bitcoin users and businesses and bitcoin in general in financial ruin, then it is unlikely to gain wide adoption. UASF needs large miner % to work in any feasible way.

movrcx [12:08 PM]
What does the business landscape look like for BU/Core? Are there direct ways to organize a temporary shutdown?

[12:09]
Like stopping trading activity

[12:09]
I mean if the miners support it then the businesses and users will have to recognize it as well

[12:09]
It's not up to the businesses to decide how the blocks are mined and if BIP200 is implemented...this is the heart of the debate lol

cryptorebel [12:10 PM]
this part of bip200 seems to make sense: "Miners who oppose BIP148 and Segregated Witness should falsely signal concurrence for Segregated Witness activation. As described within the the BIP148 (UASF) specification, miners who do not signal BIP148 are automatically segregated from the global network. False signaling prevents non-consensual forceable isolation and subsequent removal from the global Bitcoin network. Therefore those who conscientously reject BIP148 should falsely signal and refuse to be forceably subject to network isolation. "

[12:11]
the part that worries me is miners going back to a pre seg-wit block height, how does that work?

cypherblock [12:12 PM]
none of it makes sense to me. better bip would be just to reject all segwit signalling blocks on aug 1. Clean split.

movrcx [12:12 PM]
I was thinking of a system where BIP200 miners start signaling with their coinbase after SegWit activates. "STATUS - WAITING" or something similar would be broadcasted after SegWit activation.

[12:13]
The miners can broadcast unix times to switch to the pre-segwit height after enough "STATUS - WAITING" blocks are signaled.

[12:13]
The signaling alone will cause a great amount of chaos.

[12:14]
I think this strategy could be possible with maybe 20% mining support and 3-8% of coins.

cryptorebel [12:14 PM]
but will miners want to give up mining rewards to revert back to the old block height??

cypherblock [12:14 PM]
everyone has gone insane.

tomothy [12:15 PM]
It's war

[12:15]
Half measures have been shown to fail

[12:15]
There is no room for compromise

[12:15]
Death or glory

cypherblock [12:15 PM]
no, war theme is pyscological manipulation. Buy into and you play their game.

tomothy [12:15 PM]
Bitcoin or segshit coin

cryptorebel [12:15 PM]
I think we should take precautions somehow against this BIP 148, not sure what those precuations would be, we need to start war gaming it

tomothy [12:16 PM]
Hard fork pre 8/1


[12:16]
Or attempt to destroy Uasf chain

cryptorebel [12:16 PM]
yeah that is one avenue, plan a possible reaction to the split, by hardforking to bigger size blocks

tomothy [12:16 PM]
Not sure what alternatives exist

movrcx [12:17 PM]
the third option is to negotiate too @tomothy :slightly_smiling_face:

tomothy [12:17 PM]
No

[12:17]
We've all seen negotiation is fruitless

cypherblock [12:17 PM]
Reject all segwit signaling blocks on or just before Aug 1. If segwit has no chance of activating normally (95%) then any miner who was previously signaling needs to be told it is over now instead of at normal experation date.

tomothy [12:17 PM]
We've been negotiating since 2013

movrcx [12:17 PM]
Then let's crush them....

[12:17]
SegWit can be their death trap.


tomothy [12:18 PM]
Core has one goal only, blocks never larger than 1mb. They need and want cripple coin.

[12:18]
And when I say core I also mean blockstream

[12:18]
It's certainly kicked the hornets nest

[12:18]
Adam has been in damage control mode the last day

cryptorebel [12:19 PM]
its sad seeing all these brainwashed segwit souls,  watching all these idiots with UASF tagged on their twitter, and their stupid hats, what is this world coming to

[12:20]
pretty sure its never going to work, seems like suicide to me

movrcx [12:20 PM]
Idk... i think they have a good chance of success


[12:21]
It's normal for community resources to be privatized and lots of times it's usually very succesful (edited)

tomothy [12:21 PM]
It has a lot of financial backing

[12:21]
And miners are scared imho

[12:22]
Well not scared but don't know what to do

[12:22]
To a lay person. Bitcoins gone insane

[12:22]
They just want safe money and profits

cryptorebel [12:22 PM]
i think they will succeed in making a minority chain, which is really stupid how they censor and ban everyone that wanted a blocksize increase hard fork out of fears of a chain split, and now they completely support UASF which will undoubtedly result in chain split, the hypocrisy is off the charts

[12:23]
they will have to change the POW

[12:24]
so BIP200 will have miners revert back to pre-segwit block height?  Wouldn't it be better to keep the segwit blocks, and then all their inputs become "anyonecanspend" on the real chain and segwit users lose money?

movrcx [12:25 PM]
@cryptorebel There's going to be markets crashing once BIP200 starts getting signalled imo

[12:25]
Better to revert to the pre-segwit state

cypherblock [12:27 PM]
To prevent UASF chain from ever replacing main chain, a simple soft fork to reject all segwit signalling blocks starting aug 1 might work. This makes a clean chain split. Any thoughts?

movrcx [12:28 PM]
A two-chain solution is not ideal imo.


cryptorebel [12:28 PM]
That sounds like a good idea maybe, seems a lot of UASF supporters are claiming legacy chain will reorg, not sure if reverting back to pre seg-wit blockheight is same thing as a reorg

[12:29]
we have no choice at this point, 2 chain might be best scenario, we get rid of segwit idiots and mining power, and allow big block hash % to grow on real chain until we get bigger blocks

movrcx [12:29 PM]
Agreed but I think their strategy is relying on market price to be successful


[12:30]
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they start pumping up after activation then all of the attention goes to them

cryptorebel [12:30 PM]
yeah hash power always follows price, but I trust in the market

movrcx [12:30 PM]
BIP200 changes the narrative that it was an unwanted consensus change and that we're just trying to revert back to the normal state.

cryptorebel [12:30 PM]
yeah of course they will try it, but the market is a powerful force

movrcx [12:30 PM]
We'd be the good guys.
 2 replies Last reply 11 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [12:31 PM]
hopefully the market is smart enough to realize that UASF sybil segwit coin is not as secure as a coin protected by POW mining

movrcx [12:32 PM]
Judging by their UASF hordes their marketing is effective lol

cryptorebel [12:32 PM]
lol yes but we don't know if they are likely sybil hordes

klee [12:32 PM]
Ok suppose Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sucks decide to throw billions in UASF chain

[12:32]
will the miners find incentive to jump on it?

cryptorebel [12:32 PM]
hash power will always follow price

klee [12:33 PM]
even if the carrot is poisoned

[12:33]
That's the plan

cryptorebel [12:34 PM]
probably they wouldn't want to throw billions at it, too risky, plus they are fighting the market they could lose a lot of money


movrcx [12:35 PM]
BIP200 will make Bitcoin too unpalatable for awhile :slightly_smiling_face:

[12:36]
Like the whole SegWit chain could come crumbling down at any moment.

[12:36]
It's best to panic the investors imo

[12:36]
The rest will fall into place

[12:37]
Everyone is going to hedge if SegWit activates and BIP200 gets signaled

[12:37]
Some people might cash out completely

klee [12:38 PM]
My opinion is that if we want to have chances we need coordination of 3 very important poles:
1) CSW
2) Jihan
3) Calvin Ayre et al


[12:38]
Where are they?

[12:38]
(Not the Fermi Paradox)


cryptorebel [12:41 PM]
it will come down to miners in the end I guess, but csw did say some stuff happening before Aug 1st so we will have to wait and see what comes to pass in the community

csw [12:45 PM]
I am right here


[12:47]
Cal is my best friend.
He is not an investor
He is heavily invested in BTC

[12:47]
He is aligned


movrcx [12:48 PM]
Nice to hear. I'm going to see a bunch of the Core devs next week. Would you all be interested in more negotiations with Core or should I frame it as its a plan thats going to be executed? (edited)
1 reply 11 days ago View thread

bitalien
[12:51 PM]
I don't think anyone wants to negotiate with Core. They had their chance


csw [12:56 PM]
Cal spent more than BS has in total investment on a party once


movrcx [12:56 PM]
It might be opportunistic to move to 2mb blocks or whatever proposals you have once segwit gets reverted (edited)

[12:57]
Honestly this feels like we're planning a counter-revolution hehe


csw [12:59 PM]
Let us say we are taking out the trash


movrcx [1:00 PM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

btcalbin [1:33 PM]
Everything that jdillon weirdo wanted in the Peter Todd email leaks has come to pass w/ Core!

tomothy [1:49 PM]
? Email leaks?

checksum0
[1:51 PM]
I'm not following either

Pinned by cryptorebel
June 3rd at 1:59 PM Pinned by cryptorebel
[1:54]
You mean that? http://pastebin.com/4BcycXUu
Pastebin
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25        "Pe - Pastebin.com (19kB)

movrcx [1:57 PM]
@checksum0 Is that shareable^?

checksum0
[1:58 PM]
This has been leaked a long long long long time ago (edited)

[1:58]
So yeah

movrcx [1:58 PM]
Ok I just want to weaponize the leak if possible (edited)

[1:59]
The Dark Wallet portion really interests me

[1:59]
As my Zen project is essentially an extension of that

checksum0
[2:01 PM]
Honestly I never read that leak

[2:01]
I was quite disinterested in the bitcoin community during those years and was mining silently without interacting with the community at all

cypherblock [2:02 PM]
You can see some explanation from Peter Todd on that stuff here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=335658.40
bitcointalk.org
"John Dillon" We can leak things too you trolling piece of shit
"John Dillon" We can leak things too you trolling piece of shit

zbingledack [2:09 PM]
But if the market does support them the idea is that the hashrate will follow, in which case it _will_ be supported by PoW mining.
cryptorebel
hopefully the market is smart enough to realize that UASF sybil segwit coin is not as secure as a coin protected by POW mining
Posted in #hardforkJune 3rd at 12:31 PM

zbingledack [2:14 PM]
Yes, they are taking advantage of the fact that market communication in Bitcoin is still underdeveloped. That is, miners don't have an easy way to ascertain the will of the market. Thus astroturfing can (potentially) fool them.

We then have two choices:

1) Also play the astroturfing game and try to out-astroturf them (hard when they have Theymos on their side).

2) Improve market communication, through things like chain futures token trading (which I think will happen anyway and should lead to a full market referendum in advance of the fork date - a win for everyone who wants a higher BTC price because it will allow the market to speak and the miners to have a clear signal as to what blocks to vote in to obtain the most profit).
cryptorebel
lol yes but we don't know if they are likely sybil hordes
Posted in #hardforkJune 3rd at 12:32 PM
(edited)
 2 replies Last reply 11 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [2:17 PM]
yeah its a scary proposition if the market and miners would choose UASF, I think maybe there is small chance that could happen in the short term due to market manipulations and ignorance in the market.  But in the long term if there are two chains, I think the segwit chain will lose because it will have security vulnerabilities and centralization vulnerabilities that will be exposed over time, resulting in the market supporting and favoring the non-segwit chain instead

[2:19]
I like the futures market idea, too bad we don't have a true decentralized exchange though, then we would get a truer depiction of the market, because many will be wary of putting their funds on these exchanges

zbingledack [2:23 PM]
Well if we steelman* the UASF campaign, it can be seen as an attempt to put Segwit to a market referendum - a good thing, I think. Miners have the final vote, but they are incentized to please the market. So if you want to make a change in Bitcoin you can either try to get the miners to go along directly, or try to get the investors to make a definitive statement that the miners will want to follow. UASF tries to do this in the chaos _after_ the split, but in just credibly scheduling the UASF they create a futures trading opportunity that may well provide a strong, credible market signal to miners _in advance of the event._

*that is, try to interpret what they were trying to do and then see how one would achieve that in a non-idiotic way (edited)

cryptorebel [2:25 PM]
yeah interesting, I guess this is why even a lot of non-segwit supporters are looking forward to the UASF date, because they have trust in the market


zbingledack [2:26 PM]
I do think exchanges like Bitmex are reputable and reliable enough that we could easily see deep and liquid enough trading in these chain IOUs to provide a good market answer. Not everyone has to trade; if there is a big discrepancy it opens a great arbitrage opportunity, so it is kind of self-healing as a prediction market, even if centralized.

[2:28]
And to be fair, *if* the market is on their side, and they can convince the miners of that very quickly (preferably in advance), the miners will just vote in Segwit without all the hubbub.

[2:28]
I suspect the market is not on their side though


[2:29]
They are in a bubble chamber over in /r/Bitcoin

[2:29]
I posted this to the BU slack, recapping these ideas:

I think I understand the UASF logic now, or at least what the smarter ones are trying to do. It's the user counterpart of the "miners schedule a fork, futures markets trade it, miners decide whether to go through with it" plan. Instead, someone (users, devs, whoever) proposes a fork and then we trade futures (or maybe trade chains after the fork), then miners follow. Futures would be better as miners would follow early so no uncertainty.

In other words, the UASF people may very dimly grasp the issue of market communication here. They may fuzzily recognize that the miners have no way of really reading the market with certainty, and they think maybe this is the only way to get them to see how much the market yearns for Segwit.

And in a way, just like the miners have to schedule a _credible_ fork (or else traders won't want to risk trading it, thinking the miners may just back out beforehand), the "users" also have to make a credible "threat" to fork away. A threat to commit suicide? Well, not if the market really is on their side. The thing they may not see, or only some may see, is that futures trading is necessary to ensure the best chance of this actually resulting in a sound market referendum on Segwit.

This market referendum is something we should all want. If Segwit is decisively struck down in futures trading, it will be dead in the water.

But why stop there? Miners supporting big blocks and not crazy about Segwit should use this great timing to schedule a hard fork to bigger blocks (using BU or otherwise). That way the futures markets can cover all three outcomes and we can trade. Investors will be in control, with the miners for the first time having credible market information on which they can base their decisions.


zbingledack [2:49 PM]
>Baker McKenzie, founded as Baker & McKenzie in 1949, is a multinational law firm. As of August 2016, it is ranked as the second-largest international law firm in the world by headcount with 13,000 employees including 6,045 fee earners and 4,600 lawyers on a full-time equivalent basis in 77 offices across 47 countries. It is also ranked as the second largest law firm in the world in terms of revenue with US$2.62 billion in annual revenue in FY2016.

[2:49]
Hmmmm...

csw [4:02 PM]
UASF - user activated suicidal fuckup


btcalbin [6:28 PM]
UASF is bringing us such wonder, for example Tone Vays's twitter photo where he's indistinguishable from a future high school shooter!

bitalien
[6:41 PM]
That was some cringey shit

btcalbin [6:41 PM]
They better keep that Obamacare, because I need coverage for these pre-existing douchechills


btcalbin [6:48 PM]
does anybody know how to find that crazy meme photo with the dorky looking guy holding like cash with ridiculous karate weapons hanging behind him on the wall?

[6:49]
i like to think i'm not hallucinating such a thing existing, but for the life of me can't figure out how to search it

[6:49]
b/c that photo is screaming to have Tone shopped in!

bitalien
[6:53 PM]
I have no idea what meme that is

anarch33 [7:06 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr

satoshi [9:41 PM]
This guy @btcalbin ?

satoshi [9:41 PM]
uploaded this image: B15-1.jpg
1 Comment

ger [9:50 PM]
https://youtu.be/mitn_bT7GUk
YouTube Cyborg Rouslan
Homer Simpson Screams - HD Video version



checksum0
[9:54 PM]
Guys, I was eating for fuck sake


[9:54]
not cool

movrcx [9:56 PM]
We should really avoid futures markets I think.


movrcx [10:03 PM]
Futures don't happen on the network

[10:04]
There shouldn't be a chainsplit for them to trade until after everything is done.

[10:05]
They can trade the worthless chain against the miner supported one. (edited)

[10:05]
But I don't see a point why they would.

movrcx [10:48 PM]
A chainsplit should be 100% avoided unless it's on terms that are agreeable with locally.

newliberty
[11:25 PM]
uploaded and commented on this image: 9-layer-osi-shirt.png
1 Comment
Futures may:
- hedge risks
- provide information
- for the bold, a method for requisitioning discount coin.

Without them, involvement takes more commitment.
Perhaps we are fully committed, and others are not, and this changes over time.
So on the question of 'should', one might ask which path engenders greater commitment, and at the right times.
Some blocks may be more important than others when the protocol is operating both at the Monetary Layer as well as the Political Layer. :wink:


----- June 4th -----
btcalbin [12:48 AM]
commented on satoshi’s file B15-1.jpg
Sadly no, but bravo nonetheless!

newliberty
[1:01 AM]
Committed hashpower operates at the political layer with SegWit.  SegWit upsets the balance of powers between Hash, Code, and the Fast Money.

Hashpower is slow money, requiring long term investment in a geography.  This makes is a matter of local politics as well as protocol politics.  Ultimately, these are the only soldiers on the battlefield.

Some soldiers can be swayed by fast money or perceived risk.  It is prisoner dilemma, except miners can communicate and coordinate on consensus time and decision, so there is no dilemma.
That's the virtue of Nakamoto Consensus PoW. (edited)

zbingledack [5:38 AM]
Futures can be the best way to avoid a chain split. It can show the real support for something is not what people thought.

movrcx [6:31 AM]
time for me to start signaling UASF BIP200 :slightly_smiling_face:


[6:33]
With IPv6 I don't think it should be an issue getting a large amount of nodes to signal

movrcx [7:33 AM]
https://github.com/joshuayabut/bip200-seeder
GitHub
joshuayabut/bip200-seeder
bip200-seeder - Damnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning "condemnation of memory," meaning that a person must not be remembered. It was a form of dishonor that could be pas...


movrcx [7:39 AM]
My gameplan is to throw a bunch of these seeders on some Tor boxes to prevent them from getting DDoS'd (edited)

[7:40]
I can assign multiple interfaces over the Tor network and run a ton of these seeders on the same box they are pretty light weight (edited)

movrcx [7:50 AM]
First clearnet node is up :slightly_smiling_face: hehehehe

[7:54]
As long as they include tor nodes in the metrics (which they should) then I could probably get a majority signaling BIP200 as a UASF quickly (edited)

[7:55]
So if they want to use that voting majority bullshit as establishing authority across the network then that argument will become invalid.


hmr [8:03 AM]
I like it!

movrcx [8:04 AM]
Expect 1000 nodes UASF BIP200 signaling within 24 hours :slightly_smiling_face: (edited)

hmr [8:04 AM]
Im swamped but hope to find time to help.

movrcx [8:04 AM]
I got this fam :smile:


cypherblock [9:30 AM]
@movrcx running a ton of fake nodes is not going to do anything. BIP 200 is crazy and no miner will run that code, no regular person will run it either. The code does not exist yet. Sorry I just don’t see any logic in this. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

movrcx [9:30 AM]
It doesn't matter what you think I'm rolling with it anyway


cypherblock [9:30 AM]
Do you want bitcoin to succeed or fail?

[9:30]
real question

movrcx [9:30 AM]
I want Bitcoin Core out of the picture.


cypherblock [9:31 AM]
that is not an answer

[9:31]
you have competiting interests, your own coin or something?

movrcx [9:31 AM]
I do as I mentioned earlier but that's not a priority

cypherblock [9:32 AM]
lol. You are trying to further split the community and cause mahem it looks like to me.

movrcx [9:32 AM]
I think after all the chaos happens BIP200 will be seen as the reasonable alternative.

[9:32]
Honestly Core has you guys outgunned in every single way.


[9:33]
I can write the miners and I've executed a chain reversion before.

[9:33]
It went fine.

cypherblock [9:34 AM]
will your 1000 fake nodes signaling UASF-BIP 200 get counted as UASF nodes in their node trackers? If so it will just make them think they have a lot of support. This will have opposite effect that you want.

movrcx [9:34 AM]
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=uasf (edited)

[9:34]
Yes it should be easily detectable.

[9:35]
Their trackers break down the statistics further too.

[9:36]
What I want out of taking Core out is a reasonable relationship with BU.

cypherblock [9:36 AM]
ok, whatever you are in your own world. enjoy your attacks on the bitcoin network.


movrcx [9:37 AM]
I'm the only one who can end the stalemate in here.

cypherblock [9:37 AM]
no there are better solutions.

[9:38]
you will fail to write the code for bip200, and if you succeed to write it you will fail to get more than a handful of people to run it. none of them will be mining pools. Sorry this is just how it is.

movrcx [9:39 AM]
Then I'll buy the mining contracts out.

[9:39]
Ill signal BIP200 and short the market.

cypherblock [9:39 AM]
I think you are just trolling everyone really.

movrcx [9:39 AM]
What about the plan won't work?

[9:39]
How much BTC will it take to mine a BIP200 Signaling block?

[9:39]
It's all within reach

cypherblock [9:40 AM]
as I said. no one will be running your code.

[9:40]
you also did not even explain your signaling / reversion mechanism in the BIP

movrcx [9:40 AM]
It's still in proposal and it's not relevant to the strategy.

[9:40]
Have you read the latest revisions?

[9:41]
If you all chainsplit prior to UASF why does it even matter?

[9:41]
It's not your fight then so don't complain.

movrcx [9:48 AM]
What if I artificially reduce the difficulty for a period of blocks after the fork reversion? I bet miners would swarm on it.

[9:49]
If you all don't want to support it then that's fine. That doesn't mean it's not going to be successful. (edited)

tomothy [9:57 AM]
I think it makes sense to have it as alternative


[9:58]
You have no idea if core has anything hiding behind their back

movrcx [9:58 AM]
BIP200 is the final line after the earler chainsplits happen

[9:58]
It gives a backdoor into Core's UASF chain

tomothy [9:58 AM]
The recent update and iteration of the new scaling war is premised on who does the craziest crap they can think of or argue.

movrcx [9:58 AM]
You might succeed with other plans but that doesn't mean BIP200 can't be executed

[9:59]
Agreed

tomothy [9:59 AM]
Maybe their idea will fizzle out but I doubt it. They don't care if they break bitcoin as long as they get sevwit

[10:00]
You can't negotiate from a position of weakness. Core hasn't changed their offer in three years.

[10:00]
8 mb, 6mb, 4mb, 2mb? There is no counter. It's only segwit.

[10:00]
At some point you have to question intent

newliberty
[10:04 AM]
UASF is this pathetic great white shark trying to eat an empty net?
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedOzNews/status/865152505268674560
BuzzFeedOz News @BuzzFeedOzNews
This Guy Told A Shark To "Fuck Off" And It's Australian AF
TwitterMay 18th at 6:30 AM



satoshi [10:05 AM]
It doesn't get more Australian than that.  Crazy bastards.

hmr [10:21 AM]
Keep those fuckers scrambling. All the things! Against them.


movrcx [10:21 AM]
I like the phrase collective action :slightly_smiling_face:


movrcx [10:33 AM]
I think to make BIP200 more palatable to miners (if zero support is recieved at all) someone could drop a new genesis block in on the tip at diff 0 and rework the pow adjusting algorithm to be per block. Altcoiners would definitely pick up mining the chain imo.

[10:33]
Best solution is to not adjust the diff imo though

movrcx [12:15 PM]
Do you all have a room to organize with the different Bitcoin factions?

tomothy [12:16 PM]
Maybe in private or in bu slack. Maybe Ping Peter r and Tom Zander. Not sure if he's still here though. Joel might know

hmr [12:34 PM]
Zander left. He is available in the bitcoin classic slack. Dgenr8 is here(xt). Many BU members here.  Word can get to viabtc and bitmain most likely. @davids works for roger ver...

movrcx [12:35 PM]
Ok well I think we should eventually open discussions and look at our options

[12:35]
Just get organized and stuff if we want to survive

hmr [12:36 PM]
Even if we cant get everyone on board for bip200, I think there would be benefit to encouraging falsely signalling for segwit... what do you think?

[12:38]
This slack is set up such that anyone can make a private channel, this channel seems like a good place for it though...

[12:38]
Bbl

movrcx [12:40 PM]
Agreed. I think BIP200 should be the final defensive line of all of your other tactics fail. You can always execute it no matter what... (edited)

[12:40]
It doesn't become overt until SegWit activates.

[12:41]
And when that happens a prisoner's dilemma starts and someone is going to short the market first.

tula [12:41 PM]
false signaling segwit seems like a very bad idea at this moment


movrcx [12:42 PM]
Pools could explicitly say they are running BIP200 and if they want to be more overt they can go into a `BIP200 - WAITING` status right away before segwit is activated

[12:43]
BIP200 supercedes BIP148 and makes all nodes signal for SegWit anyway so it's not necessarily really false. It prohibits Core from ethically enforcing voting based decisions.

joeldalais [1:00 PM]
zander left this slack, but is available in BU slack. It's getting miners together that i've found trickier. We can get word out to most the BU/bigger blocks (pool) operators (can we get word to wang chung/f2pool?).. but there's still work to be done there

[1:01]
i haven't bothered trying to reach out to the 'hardcore' segwit pools/miners

[1:02]
BTCC & Btc.top would be good to build a bridge to (and f2pool) (edited)

tomothy [1:04 PM]
Bw as well I think?

[1:04]
The undecided pools

joeldalais [1:04 PM]
all of the undecided would be nice

[1:05]
but if we can get btcc, f2pool and bixin on the same page (bigger blocks) .. then we know whats needed to get that majority hash

[1:06]
or we wait for uasf, i'm confident pools will focus on bigger blocks once blockstream uasf's away and basically tells the pools to f'off

[1:07]
getting a majority on the same page/bigger blocks before august 1st would be nice, but i don't see it as a 'huge' priority, as they will more than likely come together after the uasf clusterfuck and realise blockstream 'devs' shouldn't be listened to on this matter

[1:08]
getting them thinking about it, and most importantly - prepared - to go bigger blocks (without core support, etc) and feeling comfortable about it, that's important (before 1st august)


movrcx [1:50 PM]
https://cointimes.tech/2017/06/bip200-a-counter-attack-against-uasf-148-independence-day/
cointimes.tech
bip200 a counter-attack against UASF 148 (independence day)? (232kB)


[1:50]
Oh it's just a copy/paste of the mediawiki

movrcx [2:32 PM]
maxwell responded to it on reddit though in his usual core shilling tone

tomothy [2:33 PM]
I wouldn't expect anything else. I'm looking forward to him getting to eat a shoe.

[2:33]
Regardless of the outcome of bip200, larger blocks sans segwit, and the look on his face... :mrburn:

movrcx [2:34 PM]
We're gonna jack them up boys! :smile:


tomothy [2:34 PM]
The tone vay interview was great.

movrcx [2:34 PM]
I didn't see that, what did happened?

tomothy [2:34 PM]
Nobody came to the Blockstream room.

checksum0
[2:34 PM]
Maxwell has a way to big ego for his good

tomothy [2:34 PM]
Oh, it's really really Good

movrcx [2:34 PM]
Like funny?

tomothy [2:34 PM]
Let me try to find the link

movrcx [2:35 PM]
I don't want to be subject to SegWit propaganda unless it's required.

tomothy [2:35 PM]
Black humor pulp fiction humor...

movrcx [2:35 PM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

checksum0
[2:36 PM]
https://youtu.be/wwht2ExwNRE?t=1333
YouTube World Crypto Network
The Bitcoin Group #143 - Price Volatility - Suits not Nerds - ICO Mania - Silbert Accords


movrcx [2:36 PM]
*click*

checksum0
[2:36 PM]
@tomothy Got it

tomothy [2:37 PM]
Thanks. Was still searching for it lol

checksum0
[2:37 PM]
@movrcx Also https://youtu.be/wwht2ExwNRE?t=1553
YouTube World Crypto Network
The Bitcoin Group #143 - Price Volatility - Suits not Nerds - ICO Mania - Silbert Accords



[2:38]
I remembered the name of the reddit thread

[2:38]
So found it quickly

tomothy [2:38 PM]
Not sure when but just fast forward to tones discussion on consensus. He was so bitter

[2:38]
His highlight was meeting whale panda...

movrcx [2:38 PM]
Consensus was garbage

tomothy [2:39 PM]
It was like they were universally despised by everyone else

movrcx [2:39 PM]
Tone is part of the problem


tomothy [2:39 PM]
He kindof has his lightbulb moment in it

[2:40]
But then he posted that Jason knife shit

[2:40]
So... Yeah...

checksum0
[2:41 PM]
When you get paid in fiat to promote Segwit

[2:41]
You never have a real come to jesus moment

tomothy [2:41 PM]
Yeah...

[2:41]
I might head to the Netherlands conference after all. Gonna touch base w work next week

newliberty
[2:42 PM]
"EOS was the biggest draw, Dan Larimer's scam number three" lol


tomothy [2:42 PM]
That line. The bitterness. Lol.

newliberty
[2:44 PM]
He's right about it though, I got a free EOS t-shirt that I wanted to wear.  EOS and Blockstream each had private rooms near each other on the 4th floor, so I went into the Blockstream room for privacy to change my shirt.  It was empty. (edited)

movrcx [2:45 PM]
I think that's just because everybody was so busy launching ICOs tbh

[2:46]
Nobody cares about Bitcoin especially at Consensus

[2:46]
Just a bunch of marketing and sales noobs trying to feast on their next project

tomothy [2:46 PM]
It doesn't hurt that bitcoin development is hamstrung because of blockstream...

newliberty
[2:47 PM]
Consensus sort of has the reputation of "scamcon" anyhow.

[2:49]
But walking around through the demonstrations, there were a lot of blockchain projects using the Bitcoin block chain.


tomothy [2:49 PM]
Interesting. That certainly wasn't presented to the public or in streams.

newliberty
[2:52 PM]
It was a bit weird for me also.  They were not proud of using the Bitcoin blockchain as I would have expected, I always had to ask, and the answer seemed to come with some reluctance.


[2:56]
I get that in my company also.  Bitcoin is still a bad word for a lot of folks, unless you call it blockchain, there is a good chance that the proposal goes to the circular file.


tomothy [2:58 PM]
That makes sense. The bitcoin stigma is relatively strong.

movrcx [3:04 PM]
uploaded this image: Capture.PNG
Add Comment

movrcx [3:04 PM]
Original article removed on behalf of Maxwell. Apparently it isn't a BIP.

[3:04]
God I can't wait to smash their hubris. They aren't fit to run a decentralized network.


checksum0
[3:05 PM]
So

[3:05]
Anybody can request a BIP

[3:05]
Anybody can present a BIP

[3:05]
Unless you aren't a core cabal


movrcx [3:05 PM]
I don't believe I have to request a thing from Bitcoin Core.


checksum0
[3:05 PM]
Then fuck you

newliberty
[3:05 PM]
Yes, it is open to flooding.

checksum0
[3:06 PM]
Maybe we should just reupload his BIP over and over again


movrcx [3:06 PM]
lol just let it fester a bit :slightly_smiling_face:

[3:06]
we haven't had any media waves yet which should come tomorrow hopefully

[3:07]
and then if that doesn't work i'll egg some of them on at bitdevs on tuesday in front of a live audience


vlad2vlad [3:24 PM]
Why do you think media coverage is coming tomorrow,  2 months is a ways out

checksum0
[3:25 PM]
Holy shit

[3:25]
Vlad's back

vlad2vlad [3:25 PM]
Hahaha

[3:25]
Been here just didn't feel like writing much

checksum0
[3:26 PM]
lol

movrcx [3:27 PM]
hi @vlad2vlad

[3:28]
I've done things like this before lol.... There are others outside of the Bitcoin space that are becoming aware of the UASF shenanigans.

[3:28]
No new news articles generally get written over the weekend. So Monday would be the first opportunity.

tomothy [3:29 PM]
Vlad, neos been looking for you...

vlad2vlad [3:30 PM]
I'll PM him.  Maybe he's got my 300 BTC.  lol


checksum0
[3:30 PM]
I don't think neo will come back

[3:30]
Wonder who is going to be the next persona

[3:31]
Hopefully he's more like natoshi

[3:31]
Scratch that... lobby was muted... he came back

[3:31]
:face_with_rolling_eyes:


vlad2vlad [3:32 PM]
He's definitely Natoshi

[3:32]
Why won't neo come back?  Did the Feds get him again.  lol

tomothy [3:33 PM]
Nah he's still here

checksum0
[3:37 PM]
I thought we finally got rid of them

[3:37]
Or Bitsko lost it and banned him

[3:37]
I was wrong :anguished:

tomothy [3:38 PM]
Nope. :sunglasses:

vlad2vlad [4:05 PM]
I know who he is, he was always a hardcore r/BTC guy.  Big Blocker.  Don't know why he's messing with people here

tomothy [4:06 PM]
Oh. Was he always insane or is that a newer development?

vlad2vlad [4:07 PM]
Yeah.  He was really funny ever since I first met him.


tomothy [4:07 PM]
I bought him a pizza. Seriously. Lol.

hmr [4:15 PM]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6f8jnj/bip200_a_counterattack_against_uasf_148/
reddit
bip200 a counter-attack against UASF 148 (independence day)? • r/Bitcoin
reddit: the front page of the internet

[4:16]
Personally I only support bips if they ignore bip2 and lukejr


movrcx [4:16 PM]
This is the BIP to do them in :slightly_smiling_face:

hmr [4:16 PM]
The whole BIP scheme is a political control

movrcx [4:17 PM]
agreed it's a scam


hmr [4:17 PM]
Too bad moneytrigz is a maxwell bootlicker.

[4:18]
Maybe @davids can ask if bitcoin.com wants to report on it.

movrcx [4:19 PM]
That could help push it into the media... I have some WL-related folks trying to pursue their channels right now.

[4:19]
Bitcoin.com would kick the beehive again though

davids [4:20 PM]
@hmr what are you asking? Sorry not following the chat here so don't know what's happening :)

hmr [4:20 PM]
Therebis a bip200 ... bip200.com ...

movrcx [4:21 PM]
@davids  We're trying to coordinate some media coverage for a blacklisted BIP to destroy Bitcoin Core.

davids [4:21 PM]
Do you have a write up with the back story?

[4:21]
Background info

movrcx [4:22 PM]
I just have the BIP but I could probably find a writer...it reads like a manifesto (as any Bitcoin proposal should imo) (edited)

[4:22]
I'm just a dev

davids [4:23 PM]
That plus I need the back story. You said black listed BIP etc. I'm online for 10 more mins. Can you email me all the details at david@bitcoin.com and I can see what I can do.

movrcx [4:23 PM]
Will do!

davids [4:23 PM]
Thanks.

hmr [4:26 PM]
:dancing_pickle:

[4:30]
I want so much rektage...  the bip process and core community are the greatest cause of a diaspora in cryptocurrency development.  Imagine if there was enough rektage of core that guys like vitalik came back to the project... :awesome:


newliberty
[4:47 PM]
They have already offered their counter-story to this, which is that there is a process to follow...  So any that look under-the-fold, (as the old newspaper guys would call it), will want to be informed about the discretionary use of process, with examples and history.  If you are going the news route, the details will matter. (edited)


[4:51]
Think of it as going to court, the biggest file has advantage.  The concern is discovery costs.  Be ready for many inquiries.
Devs often are often isolated from such support cost, but you seem exceptional and probably know all of this already.


hmr [5:33 PM]
I dont think hearn asked anyone for a number when he made bip101, and 'process' feathers got ruffled.  To my enjoyment. Imo bip 101 was the best scaling bip so far, and the bip2 process explicity disallows reasonable bips, and if Im correct that luke is also the 'editor'... this kangaroo court process deservingly needs to be laid bare for the bullshit it is...  just for shits i want to help make a number stick...

zbingledack [5:40 PM]
Core pretends to have neutral processes. We can pretend to run Core.


movrcx [5:41 PM]
Operate the Bitcoin protocol as if they don't exist :slightly_smiling_face:

[5:41]
Take the initiative :slightly_smiling_face:

[5:42]
I think BU would get alot more support if it was a bit more vocal and had someone to represent it besides roger

zbingledack [5:42 PM]
Miners need to do that. Or we all need to get into mining.

[5:42]
Vocal how?

movrcx [5:42 PM]
Start organizing outside of the normal echo chambers...try new things
1 reply 9 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [5:43 PM]
they are trying new things like new BUIP coming up for a hard fork to 8MBs set at a certain block height

zbingledack [5:43 PM]
What do you have in mind?

cryptorebel [5:43 PM]
good chance that could gain a lot of new mining support


zbingledack [5:44 PM]
Mining pools should really be running their own code. Not sure why they look to third-party dev teams. I say that as one of the first BU members.


movrcx [5:45 PM]
Core is definitely more resourced than BU but I don't think they'll win in a fight. They lack creativity and are stuck in a commercialized world. Personally I think BU should pursue better working groups with the mining community.

[5:45]
Their buy in is really important and it's hard to coordinate things when everyone is in their own bubbles.


zbingledack [5:46 PM]
Miners have been met with. They just seem rather indecisive.

movrcx [5:46 PM]
Like they don't know who to trust?

zbingledack [5:46 PM]
They are happy with the price up, status quo

cryptorebel [5:47 PM]
miners probably trust the market, problem is right now its hard for miners to read what the market wants, especially because of all the censorship, and lies, and dirty tricks


movrcx [5:47 PM]
So then they'll go with Core I think

zbingledack [5:48 PM]
They are very conservative. They don't seem to consider how much higher the price could be now if the blocksize were lifted.

[5:49]
But I see them as falsely conservative. Altcoin competition needs to be defended against.

They mistake complacency for conservatism.

movrcx [5:50 PM]
hmm

zbingledack [5:50 PM]
They all want bigger blocks though. They are afraid of Core.

cryptorebel [5:51 PM]
price would skyrocket if blocksize increased, so miners are incentivized to increase it since they receive the block reward, also they are likely holders and investors of Bitcoin.  One counter-argument to this I have heard is that since the difficulty will always increase, miners will always be making marginal profit, so maybe they don't care about the price going up?? Any thoughts on that?

zbingledack [5:51 PM]
They will make bank for a while, not pernanently.

[5:51]
Still should be good enough.

movrcx [5:52 PM]
What do they think about all of the chainsplit talk?

[5:52]
That's Core's biggest threat imo

zbingledack [5:52 PM]
Some of them see it as a concern.

[5:53]
Core has us outgunned, yes. They know the ins and outs because they designed a lot of the ins and outs.

[5:54]
The thorniest ones.

cryptorebel [5:54 PM]
maybe instead of being incentivized by a bigger reward, miners have to be disincentivized instead by the market threatening a smaller price and reward, so as price and reward crashes, miners see their investments going under and decide to raise blocksize to increase the reward again...so maybe we have to wait for a bear market and down turn in the price before miners will start to support bigger blocks

zbingledack [5:54 PM]
And Segwit just brings that to a whole new level

[5:55]
Well they have to see the market bidding up future-redeemable big-block coins

[5:55]
Fork futures must happen


[5:56]
Then the market can speak, even before a fork

movrcx [6:01 PM]
A BIP200 heartbeat on the UASF-chain will crash markets and there's going to be a ton capital flight chaos. UASF'ers have no loyalty and are proud to buy alts instead.

[6:02]
Ultimately that signaling is up to the miners to determine.

[6:03]
But I have a feeling some parties are going to short then start signaling on their own.

[6:07]
There is a ton of money to be made in shorting UASF-chain :smile:

newliberty
[6:41 PM]
Do miners need a way to mergemine chain forks, with both attack and defensive tools? (edited)

[6:42]
Basic proposition is to de-risk the chain-fork for miners.


[6:43]
Going to war, need armor and weapons.

movrcx [6:43 PM]
that's a good idea!

newliberty
[6:44 PM]
My understanding was that this is sort of nChain's bailiwick.  The arms dealer for miners.


newliberty
[6:54 PM]
The ability for miners to change strategies swiftly at least means low downtime.  More responsitivity.

[6:55]
Matonis is the strategy guy, so maybe this is something he works on.

cryptorebel [6:56 PM]
it seemed matonis was worried about miners having too much power before, didn't he speak out against Bitcoin XT? then he said he is worried they would inflate the 21 million coin limit, I wonder if he changed his stance on that

newliberty
[7:01 PM]
I congratulated him on getting the position because it seemed it would be great fun, the chance to gamify mining from a holistic perspective.  Where mining information gathering, strategy options, and decision-making tools, are all displayed with a game-like front end designed to put them in the driver seats.  All those equipped with such a setup would be the barrons of the battlefield.

joeldalais [7:01 PM]
I think its fair to say that he's changed his mind @cryptorebel

cryptorebel [7:04 PM]
what if miners decide to and succeed in increasing the coin limit? possible? Is it still Bitcoin?

joeldalais [7:05 PM]
'gamify mining' .. i might have to steal that :slightly_smiling_face:

[7:05]
ye its possible, but it would be economic suicide

newliberty
[7:05 PM]
Matonis was confused about that for a while too.
I kept pointing him to the difference between
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist
and

[7:05]
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

[7:06]
"These changes are considered to be against the spirit of Bitcoin. Even if all Bitcoin users decide to adopt any of these changes, the resulting cryptocurrency can no longer be considered "Bitcoin" because it has diverged too much from the original design."


cryptorebel [7:07 PM]
Is there a possibility the market could want an increase in coin supply in future in order to subsidize mining?  Maybe the market won't allow a huge increase, but they might allow small constant reward of like 0.1 btc forever or something

joeldalais [7:07 PM]
if mining needs to be subsidized = bitcoin has failed

newliberty
[7:07 PM]
It wouldn't work to subsidize mining.  And there are better ways.

cryptorebel [7:08 PM]
but if the miners can truly compete in a market, then it becomes a possibility, no?

newliberty
[7:08 PM]
It becomes a possible alt coin.  There are many that do this already.

joeldalais [7:08 PM]
i helped design an altcoin some years ago, an investment company/bank took it over (i walked away/was forced out), one of the things they introduced after i left (and i said NO repeatedly), was 'subsidized mining'

[7:09]
the coin is worthless now


cryptorebel [7:09 PM]
if they can vote on other changes, seems they will be able to vote on coin supply, whos gonna stop them, not saying the market will allow it to win, but its possible

newliberty
[7:10 PM]
They do vote, every ten minutes or so.

cryptorebel [7:10 PM]
there was a group I heard that wanted to keep the 50 btc reward during the first halving

[7:10]
but it did not gain traction

joeldalais [7:10 PM]
reason for increasing coin supply = greed/profit. IF miners are greed incentivized then *not* increasing the supply (and causing economic meltdown for their coin) = the more viable option if greed/profit is the motive (edited)

newliberty
[7:11 PM]
Increase is an attempt to steal from the future.  It is how currencies collapse.
Every national fiat currency is designed to collapse in this way.

cryptorebel [7:11 PM]
but maybe if they only increase it a little bit they can get away with it

joeldalais [7:12 PM]
what he said - "Increase is an attempt to steal from the future." - much better said than I :slightly_smiling_face:

newliberty
[7:12 PM]
Bitcoin is designed to not fail.

cryptorebel [7:13 PM]
so if miners do try to increase the supply, would a user activated hard fork be justified, even changing POW to maintain the 21 million chain? (edited)

[7:13]
that seems the only check and balance

joeldalais [7:13 PM]
the miner(s) increasing the supply (or trying to) would fork off, the mainchain miners would need to do nothing

cryptorebel [7:14 PM]
what if they get majority hash

newliberty
[7:14 PM]
Can look at history, every alt coin is an increase in supply.  Lately they hold quite a lot of wealth.

[7:14]
It doesn't mean that Bitcoin will change.

joeldalais [7:14 PM]
then its economic suicide and the users would diverge

cryptorebel [7:15 PM]
yeah its good to ask questions and think of all the angles

joeldalais [7:15 PM]
questions are always good :slightly_smiling_face:

[7:15]
only 1 'legit' reason to increase the supply

[7:16]
and that's for more coinage as usage is pretty much 100% globally

[7:16]
and then, you just increase the decimals

newliberty
[7:16 PM]
Yes, increase precision rather than quantity

joeldalais [7:16 PM]
what he said :slightly_smiling_face:

[7:17]
there's going to be 1-2 generations that will need to break out of the mentality "decimals to the right = baaad" (edited)

cryptorebel [7:18 PM]
fees are getting insane, I am thinking I need to move some bitcoin around to new wallets, and soon before fees are over $20 or several millibits

[7:19]
its going to be expensive to organize coins

btcalbin [7:19 PM]
Like compared to fiat values, 1 sat = $0.01 at $1 million valuation, so that would be the best problem ever to have, but is it possible that there might be a push for more decimal places for IoT or microtx reasons well before that kind of valuation?
1 reply 10 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [7:20 PM]
these fees are giving me anxiety, its sad to see this happening to Bitcoin

joeldalais [7:20 PM]
my guess is $30-40'ish by 1st august (fee's per tx)

btcalbin [7:20 PM]
i'm assuming payment channels can't get more granular than the base layer because they have to pass real unconfirmed tx's back and forth?

cryptorebel [7:21 PM]
you can;t even use Bitcoin now, now its basically a bet on whether you might be able to use it as a real cash system someday if they increase blocksize

joeldalais [7:22 PM]
blocksize increase will happen

[7:22]
i'm not worried that it won't tbh

cryptorebel [7:22 PM]
we need it so bad, and then price will be instalntly like 20K

[7:23]
2MB won't work either

[7:23]
too late for that

newliberty
[7:24 PM]
The only thing that 2mb gives us now, is that it proves the lie about hardforking being the greatest danger to Bitcoin.

cryptorebel [7:25 PM]
yeah thats the only reason I ever saw 2MB as important

[7:25]
it would set a precedent

newliberty
[7:25 PM]
It rips up a lot of astroturf


btcalbin [7:26 PM]
would something like CT maybe act as an ossifier of the decimal places? Like I imagine the fact that changing decimal places is really changing what range of ints you're talking about @ sat level, so that impacts the range proofs something like CT uses?

[7:27]
like obviously trivial parameter changes we're talking about, but we all know what it's like now once the parameters are hardcoded into the live system :slightly_smiling_face:

joeldalais [7:29 PM]
increasing the decimal places wouldn't 'break' the system, from what i understand it would be a 'similar' change to block size increase. E.g. nothing fundamental with coding, etc, would need to change

zbingledack [7:49 PM]
@cryptorebel Miners could vote to increase the coin supply, but if they increased it a lot the price would tank, and if they only did it a little the price would tank almost as hard.

The recourse against miners being idiots is having dead simple and highly reliable market information. Such as through futures trading.

If they _still_ do something crazy then Bitcoin design would be shown to have been a failure. Cryptocurrency would be a dead thing, or at least on life support awaiting a whole new invention to save it.

[7:50]
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6evgkq/one_mining_pool_bixin_has_the_power_to_end_the/diefpxj/
reddit
One mining pool, Bixin, has the power to end the stalemate. • r/btc
You inserted the word "should" because you are thinking about it incorrectly. It's not a matter of "miners *should* be able to" but a matter of...


newliberty
[7:52 PM]
Yes, ETC exists only because of the hubris of ETH, calling victory before the battle.


[7:53]
Possibly also the conviction, (or lack thereof), that the fork decision was proper.

newliberty
[8:13 PM]
Hey, you sass that hoopy /u/ForkiusMaximus? There's a frood who knows where his towel is. (edited)



----- June 5th -----
neohippy [2:56 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy

neohippy [4:05 PM]
the issue is a blocksize increase without segwit being active on any chain


kingofkens [6:53 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr, along with @rifel

movrcx [8:20 PM]
hey guys i was on a radio show with most of the core devs earlier today... they seem willing to have some bilateral talks with us on air and the person who moderates it seems to be pretty cool. they also seem open to adding more things into the consensus change (like bigger block sizes). i was thinking of setting up a time in the next week or so for us to have some community talks? i definitely have changed my mind about bip200 and i think it can be avoided.

[8:22]
even force activating bip148 is controversial in their group. the UASF-trolls are all probably coordinated by blockstream and silbert & co imo; not the people that would be on the show.

tomothy [8:24 PM]
UASF seems to have a life of its own at this point and has to be accounted for. I'm not sure what sense there is of any compromise or negotiation anymore. The war over increasing from 1mb to 2mbs has now been going on for 3-4 years. Bitcoin either lives or dies over this impasse.

zbingledack [8:24 PM]
Most of the core devs = who exactly?
 3 replies Last reply 9 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [8:25 PM]
8MB is better

movrcx [8:25 PM]
it was a radio interview for matt but luke was there and some other names i've recognized

[8:25]
Core core devs i mean

[8:25]
lol

tomothy [8:25 PM]
Ah, beauty Belle show

[8:25]
It was like and Matt jr

[8:25]
She was promoting it earlier on Twitter.

movrcx [8:26 PM]
everyone treats luke like an idiot i think

tomothy [8:26 PM]
And I have to show myself out now... I don't want to eat any more shoes...

cryptorebel [8:26 PM]
Core has lost their credibility in negotiations, they have proved to be liars ever since the hong kong phony agreement

movrcx [8:26 PM]
what happened there?

tomothy [8:26 PM]
No, Luke is here in slack, private mainly.

cryptorebel [8:27 PM]
Adam back flew to hong kong and signed agreement with miners for segwit + hard fork block increase, then they want back on the deal
1 reply 9 days ago View thread

tomothy [8:27 PM]
He got attacked again so might have left but he's back every now and again.

movrcx [8:27 PM]
lol

movrcx [8:27 PM]
what made them back out?
1 reply 9 days ago View thread

movrcx [8:27 PM]
fuck deals submit a BIP
1 reply 9 days ago View thread

cryptorebel [8:27 PM]
maybe they never intended to honor it, they seem to be complete liars

[8:27]
they seem evil

movrcx [8:28 PM]
I think they'd be willing to co-write a BIP

cryptorebel [8:28 PM]
they want to hold Bitcoin back they dont want an increase because blockstream and their funders like AXA want control over Bitcoin

[8:28]
they want to force people off chain onto 2nd layer solutions engineered by them

movrcx [8:28 PM]
@cryptorebel That's a part of it but the other part still works too.

cryptorebel [8:29 PM]
AXA is funding blockstream and Core devs, and they want technocratic smart cities where they team up with governments to track and control everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKWuj1OlDPo
YouTube AXA
Smart Cities: Step into the city of the future!


[8:30]
to do this, they must limit on-chain transactions and force people to 2nd layer transactions like lightning network

movrcx [8:30 PM]
That's not compulsory though

cryptorebel [8:30 PM]
then they can centralize and control it and turn it into a credit system

[8:30]
you cant believe a word these liars say

[8:30]
they are lying to you

tomothy [8:30 PM]
It's segwit and bitcoin or bigger blocks and no segwit. What happens is anyone's guess. (edited)

movrcx [8:31 PM]
I trust and like Matt

cryptorebel [8:31 PM]
some may be useful idiots, brainwashed and incentivized to go along with the plan

tomothy [8:31 PM]
He has been deeply involved in all of the mud.

zbingledack [8:31 PM]
Looks like you met the Core devs who are given no negotiating power

tomothy [8:31 PM]
I trust Luke more than I trust matt

movrcx [8:32 PM]
Come on guys :slightly_smiling_face: just talk to them lol

tomothy [8:32 PM]
Matt has occasionally let slip what he would like in hard forks but he's quickly always gone back to to the company line

[8:32]
They're welcome to join here

zbingledack [8:32 PM]
Greg is basically the only Core dev whose opinion gets actually reflected in overall Core policy

cryptorebel [8:32 PM]
I tried talking to them, I offered Greg Maxwell a compromise and he told me "fuck you" you can see the PM exchange on reddit

tomothy [8:32 PM]
Everyone everyone's welcome.

cryptorebel [8:32 PM]
these people are scum of the earth

movrcx [8:32 PM]
I can potentially hire Matt and any other Blockstream dev

tomothy [8:32 PM]
Even neohippy

movrcx [8:33 PM]
Well not hire... but fund

[8:33]
So this is an opportunity to get them to leave their companies

[8:33]
My project is based on Bitcoin Core anyway

tomothy [8:33 PM]
I'd like to see them survive blockstreams destruction post segwit failure

movrcx [8:34 PM]
Matt thinks everyone is going to short it asap


zbingledack [8:34 PM]
This is a classic negotiation tactic. Luke and Matt can agree to everything, but it matters not. They aren't the decisionmakers.


tomothy [8:34 PM]
If they want to work on a larger bitcoin I think that would be great

[8:34]
Going to short what? Uasf? Big block BTC?

movrcx [8:34 PM]
UASF

cryptorebel [8:34 PM]
its all about making you feel good like you had a voice

movrcx [8:35 PM]
no no no i've interacted with him a few times before... nothings changed

[8:35]
The problem is Blockstream I think

tomothy [8:36 PM]
Yes. That's accurate.

movrcx [8:36 PM]
I first met Matt in person at BitDevs in NY and basically I did a presentation about my Bitcoin but with a treasury project for self-funding things and I think he was interested.

[8:36]
I explicitly said that the commercialization of bitcoin was bs.

tomothy [8:37 PM]
Well, blockstream and Greg. Luke always has interesting ideas on things. But he's manageable.

movrcx [8:37 PM]
ok so lets go fuck blockstream up and take their labor force

 5 replies Last reply 9 days ago View thread

tomothy [8:38 PM]
It's why they were freezed out of the consensus negotiations

[8:39]
The difficulty is they've added all this stuff that isn't necessary, or wouldn't be, if you simply raised the block size. Like rbf, WTF. Litecoin added segwit but still refused to add rbf.

[8:40]
And so I think reconciliation has to happen post fork

[8:40]
Not before

movrcx [8:41 PM]
As much as Bitcoin's First Civil War intrigues me that's just going to be so bloody though. (edited)

tomothy [8:41 PM]
Yes.

[8:41]
Moon and doom with BTC at $10k a coin. High stakes to say the least.

cryptorebel [8:42 PM]
need some figurative blood to water the Tree of Liberty


tula [8:42 PM]
blue matt corallo? compromised as much as the rest of the gang ..ive seen him say too many lies


movrcx [8:42 PM]
about what @tula?

tula [8:44 PM]
scaring miners not to increase the blocksize before the HK consensus ..for starters

movrcx [8:45 PM]
ah

[8:46]
Well I pitched this thing as like an open and public Bitcoin community discussion lol

tomothy [8:46 PM]
I think it's good to discuss

[8:46]
But any agreement​ with segwit is one that shouldn't be agreed to.


movrcx [8:47 PM]
Matt said that SegWit is a nice to have for lightning but not a requirement.

tomothy [8:47 PM]
Likewise from the opposing group, anything without segwit, has been something they would oppose. How you get to compromise with that, I'm not sure.

[8:47]
So it has to come down to blockstream

[8:48]
Which makes sense, because he's said he would like larger blocks. But then back pedals after Greg stops by...

cryptorebel [8:48 PM]
there is no communication desired from segwit side, they desire to make us shut up instead, that is why they ban and censor everyone in the most popular bitcoin communication platform /r/bitcoin


movrcx [8:49 PM]
I'd like to knock Blockstream out of the picture.

[8:49]
So my project has like a $200k operating budget right now in it's DAO and I could propose funding Bitcoin developers with it

[8:50]
It's beneficial for me because my codebase is based on Core

tomothy [8:50 PM]
A better question is how much funding they have left , and when is their next funding round...

movrcx [8:50 PM]
Ok so we're in a good position then

[8:50]
If SegWit fails Blockstream evaporates

tomothy [8:50 PM]
I think so.

movrcx [8:51 PM]
The thing is is that they aren't going to let it fail by any means

tomothy [8:51 PM]
That's why they need it whereas others don't.

[8:51]
Yes. That's why there will be a segwit fork and war is guaranteed.

[8:52]
After three failed scaling increases, derailed by blockstream, it starts getting old...

movrcx [8:52 PM]
:mrburn:*plots against blockstream*

[8:53]
At the very least I'm going to try to poach Matt if that's successful it might shake up the team a bit.


tomothy [8:55 PM]
Him and Peter

movrcx [8:56 PM]
Peter is solo now I thought?

tomothy [8:56 PM]
I don't know​ what to think about Peter. I like Luke as a person I just dislike most of his ideas. But respect where he's coming from.

[8:56]
He is

[8:56]
Which is interesting...

[8:56]
And makes me wonder if blockstream is having burn rate issues...

movrcx [8:58 PM]
Hehehehe

[8:58]
Bitcoin needs it's own treasury model to keep the companies out imo (edited)

checksum0
[8:59 PM]
Maybe we should just buy out Blockstream and close them out :slightly_smiling_face:

newliberty
[9:07 PM]
Only if you are paying in XBT short contracts and then pump the price.  They aren't getting a dime from me.

movrcx [9:08 PM]
Same lol

checksum0
[9:09 PM]
A whale might make more money destroying Blockstream than what it cost to buy Blockstream

newliberty
[9:16 PM]
I am happy with the current method of destruction, buying their shorts when they try to destroy Bitcoin, and stopping them from doing so.

[9:16]
Discrediting their lies

[9:18]
Buying them for a positive number more than US$1 seems too gentle of a defeat.

andy [9:23 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @satoshi

movrcx [10:21 PM]
Hmm so Matt left Blockstream 2 months ago

[10:22]
The story is is that he "left"

tomothy [10:25 PM]
Yeah. Damn. I knew that. I should have said something.

[10:25]
He left and Peter left

[10:25]
I wonder if it's funding issues

checksum0
[10:26 PM]
They have funding issues and get Mow on boad?

[10:26]
I know Mow is probably a cheap hire but hey...


cryptorebel [10:27 PM]
75 million or whatever doesnt seem like much, but I bet they can get more if needed, turned out buying off core devs was extremely cheap


tomothy [10:27 PM]
Hmm. But I think mow was added prior to either Peter or matt leaving

checksum0
[10:28 PM]
Yeah, I guess you are right

[10:28]
Still, 75 millions over 4 years

[10:28]
Funds gotta start running low now...

satoshi [10:28 PM]
Mow just got hired I thought?

cryptorebel [10:29 PM]
yeah he got hired like probably 6 months ago or something

checksum0
[10:30 PM]
April 12th a quick google search reveals

tomothy [10:30 PM]
So they fire Matt and hire mow? (edited)

checksum0
[10:39 PM]
I don't think mow is related to Matt leaving



----- June 6th -----
btcalbin [1:21 AM]
Was this a de facto demotion for Johnny Dilley?

[1:22]
Like prior I remember him w/ the "strategy" title, although I don't recall it being C-level

newliberty
[3:26 AM]
Sometimes it is good to hire a general, just so they aren't fighting against you.

neohippy [10:12 AM]
pay to contract is a good way to have the lightning network

tomothy [10:14 AM]
that's what they're looking for

[10:14]
it's the only way their 1mb chain makes any sense

neohippy [10:15 AM]
blocksize increase + pay to contract bip

[10:16]
that is scaling for bitcoin

taxed4ever [11:58 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr, along with @phil65. Also, @neohippy left.

jonald_fyookball [3:44 PM]
whats the story

leithm [4:06 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr

jonald_fyookball [8:47 PM]
if someone were to sue blockstream,

[8:47]
it would generate a LOT of press

[8:47]
wouldnt even have to win the case

[8:47]
that would destroy them


[8:48]
they should be sued for maliciously attempting to sabotage the project, causing damage to investors

[8:49]
and there's plenty of evidence

[8:49]
all of the publicly spoken lies from gmax , luke

[8:50]
adam

[8:51]
they've probably caused investors to lose $1b

cryptorebel [8:51 PM]
maybe they need grand jury investigations for racketeering or something

jonald_fyookball [8:52 PM]
woah

cryptorebel [8:52 PM]
yeah I think that would be the way to go if anything

jonald_fyookball [8:52 PM]
i was just thinking civil suit but if we want to go criminal too

cryptorebel [8:53 PM]
there could be an investigation anyways, then the grand jury can decide if there is enough evidence to indict them

jonald_fyookball [8:53 PM]
that would be harder...not really necessary

[8:54]
a class action lawsuit would be straight forward and discredit them publicly while getting a lot of press attention

[8:55]
its an idea

cryptorebel [9:05 PM]
It might not be that hard, look the definition of racketeering: "Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/racketeering.asp
Investopedia
Racketeering
A fraudulent service built to serve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the influence of the enterprise offering the service. (341kB)
May 27th, 2010 at 1:00 PM

[9:05]
This is almost exactly what BlockStream is doing, creating a problem where there wouldnt otherwise be one by limiting the blocksize, so that they can force us onto their 2nd layer solutions

[9:06]
what they are trying to do is literally the definition of a racket


tomothy [9:42 PM]
Criminal not civil

[9:42]
You'd have to be a huge company who's plans were interrupted

[9:42]
Tough

bitalien
[10:09 PM]
This debate sucks because it's just the rehashing of arguments that have been said already, every single day

[10:10]
It's actually not a scaling *DEBATE* anymore because it's already clear that big blocks have won the debate.

At this point we just have to wait for miners to do something

jonald_fyookball [11:07 PM]
@bitalien  good point

[11:07]
that could be an article !

[11:07]
you just inspired me

[11:08]
"The scaling debate is over, and the big blockers have won."

[11:10]
but the article would just be more debating lol

[11:10]
the next phase is videos

[11:10]
i will be getting into video production and youtube promotion to reach a lot of eyeballs


[11:10]
i already have someone who promised to fund it

[11:11]
but i would like to know what is the battle plan first regarding aug 1

[11:12]
i have heard so many different things but only partial bits

bitalien
[11:21 PM]
Sounds like a great idea @jonald_fyookball !


----- June 7th -----
movrcx [12:55 AM]
*BLOCKSTREAM CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT*

[12:55]
ON BEHALF OF ALL BITCOIN USERS ACROSS THE WORLD

zbingledack [1:02 AM]
Bitpay? Coinbase? Or huger, like Overstock.com? Newegg?
tomothy
You'd have to be a huge company who's plans were interrupted
Posted in #hardforkJune 6th at 9:42 PM

bitalien
[2:03 AM]
Sadly I don't think anything they've done is illegal

newliberty
[4:40 AM]
If SEC classed it as a security, there might be an argument for manipulation.
If discovery showed that they were shorting bitcoin during some important mischief they were doing, it could be bad for them.
Or it could just be bad.
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstmanipulhtm.html
It is a pretty big can of worms to open getting those folks involved.

btcalbin [4:43 AM]
does their FUD from the opposite side that promoting a hardfork makes Gavin some kind of "virtual currency administrator" resemble anything whatsoever that actually exists in the real world?

1 reply 7 days ago View thread

joeldalais [5:30 AM]
regarding the *debate*, there never has been a *debate*, its been an attempted corporate takeover since before day 1. Greg never believed in bitcoin and neither did Adam, and after it gained some value they now want to steal fees (since they missed the early train).

[5:32]
if you think there's a *debate* you're playing into their hands thinking that there is some 'middle-ground' that can eventually be found and reached. There is none. Dash the illusion from your mind and work around blockstreamcore, because they will never ever *debate* with you. Their understanding and use of debating is just pure stalling to cause more congestion in their blind hope to push people to their retarded 'solutions' (aka, subjugation and takeover). (edited)


lunar [5:44 AM]
@jonald_fyookball The best argument to win miners over is their bottom line. They must be (honest) intelligently profit seeking, where profit is measured in BTC. We need some nice clear infographics that show exactly how much more money miners will make if they mine and hold bitcoin with an increased blocksize. Small blockers argue there's not point in increasing the blocksize because whatever size we choose will always be filled with transactions. I'd turn this against them, and try to show the anticipated increase in bitcoin price along with increased revenue from Tx processing at various increases in blocksize assuming full blocks with a minimum included Tx fee of 0.05cents and a long tail of fees up to 50 000 Tx at 4$. Metcalf's law seems to be a good approximation to play with here, so you could base your calculations around this chart. http://woobull.com/bitcoin-market-cap-should-be-40b-according-to-metcalfes-law/ to show Bitcoin with 10MB full blocks would be 3million Tx/day and value BTC market cap at 0.9 trillion. Obviously you need to use caution here, because it would actually take quite some time to grow the network to fill 10MB blocks, but this is the point we are trying to show, by keeping fees high they are roadblocking adoption and hence their bottom line.
Woobull
Bitcoin Market Cap should be $40b according to Metcalfe’s law
Metcalfe’s Law states the value of a network is proportional to the number of members squared. I thought it’d be fun to run the numbers on the Bitcoin Network. Since we don’t have…
Sept 10th, 2016 at 2:35 PM



tula [6:05 AM]
> The best argument to win miners over is their bottom line.
= we need to stop paying fees to the smallblock miners


movrcx [9:17 AM]
It might be good to point out that after the block rewards ends then there will be little incentive left for miners with SegWit. There's no reason a miner should support 148 at all.

hmr [9:18 AM]
Was that bump in node count your doing?

movrcx [9:22 AM]
No shouldn't be... my nodes are just doing outbound connections right now and shouldn't be counter


movrcx [9:48 AM]
I think I found a way to bypass Core's transaction replay protection mechanism. It makes a chainsplit absolutely suicidal.


tomothy [9:48 AM]
see newliberty's recent comments in private as well

movrcx [9:48 AM]
Will do

tomothy [11:32 AM]
So I'm finally in the office today. Here is some more speculation concerning Bluematt

[11:35]
From Anonymous-

My two cents about Matt Corello (could be wrong)
Shortly after the hong kong agreement Lombrozo told me that Matt was having a hard time with something. It is good to know that the Hong Kong plan (segwit and a 2mb hard-fork after) was modeled after a proposal he made. The 75% discount in SWSF would be brought down to 50% during the hard-fork so that the total size would not be over 4mb. After the hong kong agreement (where Matt was present) some of the other Blockstream team members were very publicly upset about it. Greg called them all dipshits and Mark Friedenbach was outraged. They made very clear that the agreement would not find consensus within Core. The deal died within 48 hours even though that was of course not an official statement as Classic was still seen as a threat. Blockstream employees have a deal where if they do not agree with Blockstream policy they can continue working on Bitcoin while being payed by Blockstream. His departure from Blockstream seems to be approx a year after the Hong Kong mess. So I have a feeling his employment came to an end last year but because of the contractual provision of 1 year it came in effect this year. Like I said, I could be wrong

Just one more note on Matt Correlo. Last year I did see him spread FUD and untruth together with Peter Todd on Chinese chat forums that were intended to keep Chinese miners from going with Classic. Also witnessed him attacking Jeff Garzik in Core slack when he was saying that businesses were very much in need and in favor of a block size increase. The fact he left Blockstream does not mean he changed his character. He can be a nasty piece of work. Seen him comment on other crypto projects and devs too. Huge ego’s, immature, low self reflection……. It is hard to not start seeing something you work on as your own project. Most in Bitcoin do not have a lot of credentials outside of Crypto or in the real world. Some started to believe in the BS that they are the only true experts. If you drive all that think different out, and you create a uniform group you are bound to start fucking up. Main group of developers has so much dysfunctionality in it, its unbelievable.


csw [11:43 AM]
Do Any of them have marketable skills?

[11:44]
PS
None of them are cryptographers

checksum0
[11:55 AM]
@tomothy you got that from someone or found it digging around forums?

tomothy [11:55 AM]
from someone

[11:56]
in this environment sometimes it's not ok to be associated with honest discourse

[11:56]
remember coinbase and classic, prior to the segwit stuff? XT? Small block attacks get brutal.

checksum0
[11:57 AM]
So bs was outraged with the deal Matt was a part of?

tomothy [11:57 AM]
Yeah, do you recall the HK fallout at all? I know this saga has been going on for ages... so...

[11:58]
HK was a shit show. Miners were going to implement Classic.

[11:58]
Adam Back flies out, and says NO NO NO NO NO (more or less)

[11:58]
just wait...

[11:58]
we'll get you a hardfork! and we might have a solution as well, this amazing thing called segwit...

[11:59]
he was supposed to sign ON behalf of Block Stream and then didn't...

[11:59]
and then everyone attacked matt and todd for being involved in HK

checksum0
[11:59 AM]
Yes I remember everything. That explains why he became a "contractor"

tomothy [11:59 AM]
it could

[11:59]
i think that was the suggestion

[11:59]
i didn't pick up on the timing as such but it's a plausible theory

[12:00]
the whole HK thing got really messy/ugly

[12:00]
and then I remember (speculation) hearing about exchanges present that had open margin positions and needed certain responses to ensure their positions went well

checksum0
[12:00 PM]
Everything been messy since BS was funded and hired most core devs

tomothy [12:00 PM]
I want to say it was Star but no clue

checksum0
[12:00 PM]
Even bs history is messy

tomothy [12:01 PM]
BS also has a messy history? (wasn't aware as such)

checksum0
[12:01 PM]
With previous CEO and everything

tomothy [12:01 PM]
?

[12:02]
(I probably know these things, it gets so soap opera esque, it all blends together)

checksum0
[12:02 PM]
Austin hill

tomothy [12:02 PM]
Ok, what happened to him? (Again, sorry. LOL :smile: )

checksum0
[12:04 PM]
He got pushed to the side big time when axa came in

[12:04]
It was ugly

[12:04]
Back was unofficially CEO for a while before he got fed up enough to leave by himself

tomothy [12:04 PM]
When was this? And when did AXA come in? Who replaced him? How did it get ugly? Is there anywhere I can go to read up on the transition?

checksum0
[12:05 PM]
October 2016 but back was in control before that

[12:06]
Best rumours are probably on bct if you got time to lose. On cellphone now


tomothy [12:06 PM]
kk

[12:07]
I'll try to do a search later once i get these memos out. I'm wondering if with the change, Blockstreams scaling position changed as well.

[12:07]
Adam was saying 2-4-8 was ok in 2015

[12:07]
2016, it was then segwit and fuck bigger blocks

[12:07]
(figuratively)

phoenix
[12:07 PM]
the individual devs position definitely changes pre and post BS

cryptorebel [3:58 PM]
former Blockstream CEO Austin Hill has admitted he was a "straight up scammer": http://betakit.com/montreal-angel-austin-hill-failed-spectacularly-before-later-success/
BetaKit
“A Straight Out Scam”: Montreal Angel Austin Hill Recounts First Business at FailCampMTL
Saturday's FailCamp in Montreal was a gathering of about 160 startup and small business entrepreneurs curious about failure and success. On stage throughout the (76kB)

[3:59]
AXA came in Feb. 2016: https://blockstream.com/2016/02/02/blockstream-new-investors-55-million-series-a.html
blockstream.com
Blockstream Welcomes New Investors: Adds $55 Million in Series A
Blockstream is off to a strong start this year with a number of new customer engagements, our announcement of a strategic partnership with PwC, and today bei...


cryptorebel [10:31 PM]
user noosterdam has some very interesting comments in this thread regarding spinoffs, and inflation: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4q1l1o/it_is_imperative_that_we_encode_resistance_to/
reddit
It is imperative that we encode resistance to economic central planning into Bitcoin’s DNA, • r/btc
30 points and 15 comments so far on reddit




----- June 8th -----
linzheming
[12:40 AM]
Do we already have a hard fork since BIP-0066? so the pre-bip0066 client will reject the longest chain?

tomothy [6:37 AM]
Will ask in more frequent channel

btcalbin [7:35 AM]
no BIP 66 isn't a hardfork, it just caused temporary chain splits because of header spy-mining on top of blocks made by a miner that signalled the softfork but wasn't actually running the node version to enforce it

cypherblock [10:25 AM]
also the whole bitcoin had a hard fork, no it didn’t, yes it did, thing is a bit old IMO.


btcalbin [11:43 AM]
the flag day for upgrading to 0.8, a backport with the correct db settings, or manually tweaking db settings definitely was a hardfork

bagatell [4:54 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr, along with @mrmadden

hmr [8:38 PM]
https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/872893481093656576
movrcx @movrcx
$Zen and probable $BTC 0day for replay attacks. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB0j_RyUwAAZZ8E.jpg
TwitterJune 8th at 3:09 PM (145kB)

checksum0
[9:27 PM]
tx-replay-prevention?

[9:27]
here?


checksum0
[9:33 PM]
Also @hmr, fucking Bitpico replying to movrcx tweet :joy: :joy:

klakurka [9:47 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr, along with @guanbaiqiang, @bitchcoin, @ntegan1. Also, @el33th4x0r joined.


----- June 9th -----
movrcx [1:21 AM]
@checksum0 was on a different Slack :)


shadders [11:03 AM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @tomothy. Also, @anarch33 left.

cryptorebel [1:32 PM]
vitalik has a funny, but interesting proposal for increasing capacity, seems better than segwit anyways: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/428tjl/softforking_the_block_time_to_2_min_my_primarily/
reddit
Soft-forking the block time to 2 min: my primarily silly and academic (but seemingly effective) entry to the "increase the blockchain's capacity in an arbitrarily roundabout way as long as it's a softfork" competition • r/btc
So given that large portions of the bitcoin community seem to be strongly attached to this notion that hard forks are an unforgivable evil, to the...


checksum0
[1:37 PM]
Fucking shorter block time all the time

checksum0
[1:37 PM]
We don't _need_ shorter block time. Why are they so blinded by that ffs?
 2 replies Last reply 4 days ago View thread

csw [1:38 PM]
More stupidity

phoenix
[1:52 PM]
how does this one sound ? https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/kogias

[1:53]
http://hackingdistributed.com/images/2016-bitcoin/byzcoin-throughput.png (106kB)

[1:54]
One of the most interesting presentations in "Scaling Bitcoin" in Milan, and not a single question from the whole audience...

csw [1:57 PM]
Visa scales to over 50,000 TX/sec now

[1:58]
And nothing of use or fact in that entire presentation.

phoenix
[2:01 PM]
I thought they run actual experiments on this, isn't that useful ?

[2:03]
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_kokoris-kogias.pdf or this https://github.com/DeDiS/Cothority ?
GitHub
dedis/cothority
cothority - Scalable collective authority prototype


zbingledack [2:42 PM]
Any thoughts on "weak blocks" / subchains?

phoenix
[2:45 PM]
this appears to be similar in several regards (edited)

cryptorebel [9:12 PM]
how big of a threat is barry silberts "compromise" chain? some discussion about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6g86td/will_uasf_allow_to_bitcoin_unlimited_go_live_on/
reddit
Will UASF allow to Bitcoin Unlimited go live on the old chain? • r/btc
^


vlad2vlad [9:20 PM]
Big threat - Barry has Goldman behind him.  It could get pretty ugly.

csw [9:23 PM]
Not really

[9:23]
Bary sells exagerated claims



----- June 10th -----
phoenix
[6:28 AM]
meanwhile, eth already has applications running their LN (state channels) https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_offchain_settlement Interesting use case: sure. Scaling solution: no.
lykke.com
Lykke Offchain Settlement: FAQ
Offchain settlement is about registering over the blockchain a mutually agreed initial state for a bidirectional payment channel (as represented by a multi...


----- June 11th -----
jonald_fyookball [8:48 AM]
is it really feasible to have a 4 way split ?:joy:

vlad2vlad [8:49 AM]
I think we'll end up having at least 3 chains by the time Core is done playing god


jonald_fyookball [8:57 AM]
a little game theory:  if their plan really was to rekt BTC...then creating any kind of minority chain that survives might be better than losing their power , at least that would in their hopes cause confusion and perception of splintering

[8:58]
they would also no doubt attempt to steal the name

[8:58]
even on a minority

[8:58]
probably by bribing exchanges etc

vlad2vlad [9:03 AM]
I think that's exactly what they're gonna do.  Stay on the minority chain and steal the name when it's really a completely new alt.

jonald_fyookball [9:04 AM]
is that really going to fly

[9:06]
in such a situation i would be concerned about people like Barry

[9:06]
they control a lot media

[9:07]
i guess there could be a huge post split war over the name

csw [9:08 AM]
They think they do....

jonald_fyookball [9:08 AM]
thankfully, Adam and Greg gave us plenty of ammunition to demonstrate how deceitful they are by participating in the trolling personally

[9:08]
not very strategic on their part.

csw [9:09 AM]
No, but very good from my perspective.

jonald_fyookball [9:09 AM]
exactly

[9:10]
will be easy to compile hit pieces painting them as the usurpers they are

[9:12]
one thing that i am not seeing is there is no powerful news outlet (that i'm aware of) on "our side"

[9:12]
DCG owned coindesk....

[9:12]
not sure who runs cointelegraph, they seem only marginally better

[9:12]
actually they just like opportunists

tomothy [9:12 AM]
Coingeek


jonald_fyookball [9:12 AM]
they will take anyone's money

[9:12]
coingeek is cool but needs more prominence

csw [9:13 AM]
That will come

jonald_fyookball [9:13 AM]
well it should come soon dont you think if there's to be a war over the name

csw [9:13 AM]
No, what war...

[9:13]
If you think that is a battle

jonald_fyookball [9:14 AM]
vlad2vlad
I think that's exactly what they're gonna do.  Stay on the minority chain and steal the name when it's really a completely new alt.
Posted in #hardforkJune 11th at 9:03 AM

csw [9:14 AM]
You are not seeing how easy it is :slightly_smiling_face:

jonald_fyookball [9:15 AM]
@csw if dcg calls their fork "BTC" and so does coindesk, and so does cointelegraph, and so does bitfinex, that would be the concern

csw [9:15 AM]
Law is law....

jonald_fyookball [9:16 AM]
ummm

[9:17]
i see your point but people are easily led, fooled, and manipulated, generally more ignorant and less intelligent than imagined...this war has reminded us of that (edited)

csw [9:17 AM]
uploaded this file
LLM_CSW.doc
357kB
Word Document
 Click to download
Add Comment

csw [9:18 AM]
Did you know that my specialty as a (academic and not dumb enough to practice) lawyer was...

[9:18]
Internet Intermediary Liability

jonald_fyookball [9:19 AM]
I didn't.

csw [9:19 AM]
Now you do.

[9:19]
AND

vlad2vlad [9:19 AM]
What does that mean, csw, we can sue for the name?

csw [9:19 AM]
I am smart enough to leave the work to the big firms :wink: (edited)

[9:20]
We... no... but...

jonald_fyookball [9:20 AM]
i dont think you can sue anyone if everyone just starts calling something by a certain name or a meme takes off

csw [9:20 AM]
Really....

[9:20]
See, Shapiro, Andrew L., Digital Middlemen and the Architecture of Electronic Commerce, 24 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 795 (1998).

jonald_fyookball [9:21 AM]
well you could but it may not change things...memes are very hard to change

csw [9:21 AM]
Roadtech Computer Systems Ltd v Mandata (Management and Data Services) Ltd (25 May 2000) unreported, High Court, Chancery Division HC 1999 04573 per Master Bowman.

jonald_fyookball [9:21 AM]
are you thinking of sending legal notices to exchanges pre-emptively

vlad2vlad [9:21 AM]
So who has the right to sue for the name or is it best to just let it go and focus on proving unlimited blocks are better.

csw [9:22 AM]
Also read the original metatag case

Playboy Enterprises Inc v Calvin Designer Label (1997) 44 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1156 (ND Cal). Was based on the use of registered trade marks of Playboy Enterprises Inc ("PEI"), PLAYMATE and PLAYBOY, as terms in the meta tags of their web sites as well as in the domain names used for their sites.

vlad2vlad [9:22 AM]
Sending letters to the exchanges might work.  They can't afford a war with big law firms.

csw [9:22 AM]
Let us just say.... I have no fears for UASF


vlad2vlad [9:22 AM]
Especially if it's clear they're in the wrong

jonald_fyookball [9:23 AM]
i take Sun Tzu wisdom to heart

csw [9:23 AM]
Most of the *Big Exchanges* do not have enough runway to even consider a battle

jonald_fyookball [9:23 AM]
never underestimate your opponent

csw [9:24 AM]
I never do


[9:25]
I did not a year ago

[9:25]
I do not now

[9:25]
They did

vlad2vlad [9:25 AM]
It's Blockstream/core that has underestimated and dismissed Craig.  That's an understatement.  Things should get interesting as we approach August 1.

csw [9:27 AM]
Trintec Indus. v. Pedre Promotional Products, 04-1293 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2005)

_“Specific jurisdiction ‘arises out of’ or ‘relates to’ the cause of action even if those contacts are ‘isolated and sporadic.’ . . . General jurisdiction arises when a defendant maintains ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state even when the cause of action has no relation to those contacts._

So, the US even has provisions to pull the Core developers into a case specifically and personally.

[9:28]
Jurisdiction may be found under D.C.'s long-arm statute

[9:28]
_Gibbons v Brown (1998) 1998 716 So. 2d 868; A car accident resulted following bad directions; the plaintiff sought to assert jurisdiction over non-resident on the grounds that the defendant had filed a lawsuit in the forum two years earlier stemming from the same incident (the plaintiff was not a party to that suit). The FL long arm-statute permitted jurisdiction over those “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity” within the state. It was held, bringing an action in the state two years earlier does not qualify as substantial activity, no personal jurisdiction. In the case of Dealing with a website (as was expressly not decided in Trintec Indus. v. Pedre Promotional Products) it is likely that a website would have to be shown to operate extensively or particularly target the location for jurisdiction to be applied. As an example, a site in the UK that operates a US page and sells product stating that they deliver to the US could be covered by the US long-arm statutes._ (edited)

jonald_fyookball [9:28 AM]
i was reading on r/btc about OKCoin stealing small amounts (less than 1m) btc.... a lot of players seem easily bribed, and very short term thinkers...

[9:29]
they arent thinking about legal ramafications

csw [9:29 AM]
Yet

vlad2vlad [9:29 AM]
Greed!

jonald_fyookball [9:29 AM]
they arent even smart enough to know their business reputation is more valuable than 97 BTC....how can you expect them to know to stay out of legal trouble

csw [9:30 AM]
More reading:

Quimbo, Rodolfo Noel S (2003) “Legal Regulatory Issues in the Information Economy”, e-ASEAN Task Force, UNDP-APDIP (MAY 2003); See also, JT03220432 (2007) “Mobile Commerce” DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER POLICY DSTI/CP(2006)7/FINAL, 16-Jan-2007

csw [9:36 AM]
uploaded this image: LLMD.jpg
Add Comment

csw [9:36 AM]
Just so you know...

When Greggie says my degrees are not real and has a paid hit piece on me....

[9:36]
It does not change the fact they all still exists.

[9:37]
Law

[9:37]
Economics

[9:37]
Computer science

[9:37]
Maths

[9:37]
Statistics

[9:37]
Physics

[9:37]
Business

[9:37]
Finance

[9:37]
...

[9:37]
:slightly_smiling_face:

[9:37]
They are about to discover that the longer they call me out as a fraud....

[9:38]
The worse they are going to look.

vlad2vlad [9:39 AM]
Like I've been saying:  Dr Wright, the one man wrecking crew.  Got my popcorn ready for August 1st.

csw [9:40 AM]
Oh... I am not one man - me yes, but I have a really great team

[9:40]
That will not be secret too much longer

[9:41]
There are lawyers, finance people, mathematicians, computer scientists
Developers...


[9:41]
more actually

jonald_fyookball [9:43 AM]
Greg seems to be a tragic character.

[9:44]
a lot of potential and he chose to go down a road of some really bad karma

[9:44]
its kind of sad

[9:45]
but i guess that is where some people are at

vlad2vlad [9:46 AM]
I think they got corrupted by money

[9:46]
I bet AXA threw more money at them than they've ever seen so they have no loyalty to bitcoin

jonald_fyookball [9:46 AM]
yes , well that was the karmic test for Greg

[9:46]
and he failed

vlad2vlad [9:46 AM]
It seems that way

jonald_fyookball [9:47 AM]
i look at his old picture from Github...and compare that to the picture of him on blockstream.com....and its like i can literally see the life force drained from him

vlad2vlad [9:47 AM]
Hahaha

[9:47]
Good eye

[9:47]
All that cash soaked it up.

btcalbin [9:51 AM]
He's like a real life Walter White, in person he's this weak soft-spoken weasel, but give him the venue to lord over people online and he's an over-the-top sadistic monster

[9:52]
A decade ago people involved in Wikipedia already knew he was trash

jonald_fyookball [9:52 AM]
hah yea

jonald_fyookball [9:58 AM]
someone should do a spoof video of jesse pinkman telling hank "you dont understand, mr white is the devil. " scene...and dub in greg maxwell or nullc


btcalbin [10:00 AM]
i can't personally vouch for this, but over the years I've heard many accounts from people of the downright psychotic direct messages he sends to anonymous posters on like reddit, etc

jonald_fyookball [10:01 AM]
i sort of got one

btcalbin [10:01 AM]
did he brag to you about how rich he is?

[10:01]
just curious b/c that seems to be a common theme

jonald_fyookball [10:02 AM]
no

[10:04]
but if he is rich that makes his decisions even dumber.

[10:05]
i can understand (more) if you sell out because you'll go from poor to rich

btcalbin [10:10 AM]
my guess so far is that all of this goes way deeper than just mundane money concerns, the guy is vain and self-important on a level that's almost impossible to wrap your head around

csw [10:13 AM]
I guess Greggie also did not believe that a person could be an overqualified git like me who refuses to get out of Uni :wink:

[10:14]
Too easy to attack without really checking :wink:

[10:14]
Oh well... he is about to learn

btcalbin [10:21 AM]
I suppose you're like the worst possible person for him to deal with, because he needs to be the expert on everything

jonald_fyookball [10:21 AM]
@csw so, any advice for investors?  Besides hodl?

[10:22]
i mean "opinion"

tomothy [10:22 AM]
Buy more.

[10:22]
Hold.

[10:22]
Sell top at 14k and rebuy at maybe 8k

lunar [10:22 AM]
yeah the ETH situation is getting pretty hot, they are closing the gap very fast. We need action not words.

jonald_fyookball [10:23 AM]
haha yeah i would like to buy more but not sure its worth it because it wouldnt increase my crypto holdings by a great % but would deplete my fiat holdings by a good %... my crypto holdings became worth more than my fiat in this boom.

btcalbin [10:24 AM]
the long term log trend is definitely holding


csw [10:24 AM]
@jonald_fyookball
Create apps - ones that increase use


jonald_fyookball [10:24 AM]
i have a few projects yes

btcalbin [10:25 AM]
i can't even tell you how many real life friends i have who are interested in Bitcoin just for online gambling

[10:25]
like there is crazy mainstream demand to use it brewing

jonald_fyookball [10:25 AM]
i was thinking today about getting that monaco visa card

[10:26]
heard about it?

[10:27]
its a debit card you can fund with BTC or ETH

tomothy [10:28 AM]
Coinbase shift works well. Fund w LTC/eth/btc

[10:28]
Should switch to private. We've jumped the shark here :innocent:

jonald_fyookball [10:28 AM]
i dont trust coinbase anymore, their CS is terrible

[10:29]
in any other industry, they'd have gone out of business

[10:29]
you can't take weeks to get back to customers

btcalbin [10:29 AM]
i wonder if maybe they're too selective about who they hire, like a while back i looked at their online test to interview customer service people, and it was all this like Bitcoin specific stuff

[10:30]
customer service doesn't need to know any of that

[10:30]
they just need to know how to look up your account in the computer!

tomothy [10:30 AM]
Nature of huge growth. Most exchanges/providers having similar trouble

jonald_fyookball [10:30 AM]
the thing is, I signed up with Gemini ....yeah was just gonna say... they too are taking weeks to verify me

[10:30]
demand is out of control

[10:31]
it could get even crazier

[10:32]
when there's office talk around the water cooler of "did you get some bits yet"

[10:32]
and Joe mainstream wants a piece

[10:32]
we'll probably have 6 figure coins

btcalbin [10:35 AM]
a few years ago just kind of to see what it was all about, i took a phone interview with them for a business position, i got the distinct impression that their strategy had something to do with getting as many people as possible on their API

[10:37]
this was prior to GDAX and at this time they were still pushing merchant adoption services

brad1121 [7:25 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @hmr. Also, @hankdasilva joined, @dagurval joined, @elliotolds joined, @ericwulff joined, @torusjkl joined, @bergun joined, @mengerian joined, @painlord2k joined along with some others.


----- June 12th -----
jonald_fyookball [12:23 PM]
i pasted this in another slack, reposting here:

question...
12:21
i am putting together a new article with some economic type graphs for the miners... one argument is that if BTC price followed , say, ethereum trajectory, miners' revenue would be so much more...HOWEVER, that doesnt account for difficulty increases... still, there would certainly be SOME increase.. any insight on the right math to use here?

csw [12:25 PM]
In a sec

csw [12:26 PM]
uploaded this file
Scale.xlsx
31kB
Excel Spreadsheet
 Click to download
Add Comment


csw [12:28 PM]
uploaded this file
Scale Calcs.xlsx
22kB
Excel Spreadsheet
 Click to download
Add Comment

csw [12:32 PM]
uploaded this file
Equilibrium Tx Fee distribution.xlsx
35kB
Excel Spreadsheet
 Click to download
Add Comment

csw [12:33 PM]
uploaded this image: image.png
Add Comment

csw [12:35 PM]
Rolling Bitcoin out to have 5 billion users means that there will be an average of 0.004 BTC per person. Just 4 MilliBitcoin and these will not be evenly distributed (as they shouldn't be).

This is 400,000 Satoshi per person globally.

The majority of people globally have less than 4000 USD in wealth.

As we approach the billions of users we will come to issues with. Right now, we have 51 bits of precision (this is where the 400,000 satoshi per person average comes from).

With billions of users, we will need more than 51 bits of precision to allow micro-payments. When this occurs, we will HAVE to send numbers as strings. This will mean that we have C++ or JavaScript (choose a language) convert the strings into a bignum library using a series of handlers.

When we get to this point and require more precision, it will be possible to implement fraction of satoshi payments. Bitcoin is always sent in Satoshi, so changing precision is not a simple task. But there was ways to implement an introduction of fractional Satoshi without breaking the existing blockchain information. This will require the creation of completely new forms of company and intermediaries. These do not exist at the moment so I cannot say with certainty what they would look like yet.

These would aggregate fractional payments of Satoshi. The protocol would not change, but it would be a form of payment channel. You enter a Satoshi and it is transferred when the full value is spent.

When we get to the stage that BTC is used by 5 billion people, I would expect that 1 Satoshi would be equal to up to 1 USD in purchasing power parity of today.

A microservice could hold 1 Satoshi and divide this in payment channels with 10EXP8 precision for a 32 bit value that can be written to the block in script (BTC script works on 32 bit values).

This way, one Satoshi could be split into 1 millionth of a cent by these aggregators for a small fee.

All on block and recorded, but with a means to allow the sale of a single match. I remember in Ghana seeing people on the side of the road who would buy a few boxes of matches and sell these one by one as people required them.

It also means word by work, second by second sales of media.

jonald_fyookball [12:50 PM]
having a look

csw [12:51 PM]
Just steal what you need with permission :wink:

[12:51]
Ignore the typos

jonald_fyookball [12:51 PM]
@csw were these in response to my question?

csw [12:52 PM]
Personal planning and notes

[12:52]
But yes

jonald_fyookball [12:52 PM]
it seems to be a lot more than what i was asking, let me try to rephrase my question

csw [12:53 PM]
of course

zbingledack [12:55 PM]
You want to know how miner profits increase with BTC price

csw [12:56 PM]
More use, more value

jonald_fyookball [12:56 PM]
lets ignore fees for a moment and deal with subsidies based on price.  If lets say Y-T-D, BTC appreciated 300% and ETH appreciated 3000%,  how much of that 300% translated into increased miner revenue?  That's the basic question.

zbingledack [12:56 PM]
It really depends on how fast competition enters, as well

csw [12:57 PM]
100% for revenue... but I think you want profit.

jonald_fyookball [12:57 PM]
thats what i meant

[12:57]
yes

zbingledack [12:58 PM]
While new miners are getting into the game, difficulty stays low despite a massive price increase. Unless you have miners and equipment resting on the sidelines, like after a big bear market. So it is complicated.

[1:00]
For example, if bitcoin suddenly went 100x, and it took a year for any new hashpower to come online, current miners would get all that profit for themselves (more than 100x in fact)

csw [1:00 PM]
Far more

[1:00]
As the revenue would stay low

zbingledack [1:00 PM]
Yes, because whatever their margin was

csw [1:00 PM]
And the Profit margin increase

zbingledack [1:01 PM]
Yep. So like if they had 10% margin, I guess it's about 1000x profit increase

jonald_fyookball [1:01 PM]
i guess i could simply calculate during this boom whats the price increase / difficulty increase ratio

zbingledack [1:01 PM]
Yeah, in the past. Historical data

csw [1:01 PM]
Profit is also better if you can risk holding


[1:02]
Rather than make and dump

jonald_fyookball [1:02 PM]
no , but you are right @zbingledack  because:   I think the price increase has been so dramatic that difficulty increases would not be greater even if the price appreciation was 10-fold

zbingledack [1:03 PM]
Yeah, only so much hashpower can be manufactured per month

jonald_fyookball [1:03 PM]
exactly, and that is likely near max already

csw [1:03 PM]
We are looking at double the hash rate in a thime frame for triple the price right now

jonald_fyookball [1:04 PM]
so this supports my argument very well

[1:04]
miners got robbed of profits

zbingledack [1:04 PM]
By Core? Oh yeah

jonald_fyookball [1:04 PM]
blockstream

[1:05]
and core yea

[1:06]
thanks for helping me think this through

csw [1:07 PM]
So, at around 7% profit (short term dumping)
We start at point 0 (7%)

Then, we have 50% of the returns for the same hardware by block

But 150% of the value.

100 -> 50x3 = 150
So...

Profit could be as much as 8.5x as much - attracting many new miners...


jonald_fyookball [1:09 PM]
yes but they wont be able to get the asics quickly since production is already near max, right?

csw [1:09 PM]
Yes

[1:10]
And - a hold strategy makes more

zbingledack [1:12 PM]
And when ASIC production is maxed out the existing miners get it all as gravy for even longer

linzheming
[1:14 PM]
You forget the obsolete miners will be brought online.

jonald_fyookball [1:15 PM]
good point @linzheming ..what % of extra difficulty will that add?

zbingledack [1:15 PM]
If your costs are $10 per second and your revenue is $11/sec, you're making $1/sec.

If your revenue goes 10x, to $110/sec, while your costs stay the same at $10/sec, you're now making $100/sec.

100x profit increase on a 10x price increase. Until new hashpower comes online.

linzheming
[1:16 PM]
Maybe the hash rate 1-2 yeas ago.

jonald_fyookball [1:16 PM]
makes sense

[1:16]
good stuff, i will use all this

linzheming
[1:17 PM]
The marginal cost of bitcoin is nearly 2600CNY now.

[1:18]
Far less than the price.

zbingledack [1:19 PM]
And even if global hashpower _doubles_ in the ensuing few months, so that your income is only $55/sec, you still are making 55x what you were before, just from that same 10x BTC price increase.

[1:20]
About $380 to mine a BTC? Wow

linzheming
[1:20 PM]
Difficulty increases rapidly at 10% per difficulty change.

jonald_fyookball [1:20 PM]
that's just electricty? not hardware

linzheming
[1:21 PM]
marginal cost.

zbingledack [1:21 PM]
Oh yeah, have to figure total costs over time

linzheming
[1:21 PM]
Man power, electricity, and so on.

jonald_fyookball [1:21 PM]
how are you defining that

zbingledack [1:22 PM]
And startup cost for new entrants

linzheming
[1:22 PM]
And if we consider about 800k CNY/Phash

jonald_fyookball [1:22 PM]
gtg bbl

linzheming
[1:23 PM]
In 18month

zbingledack [1:23 PM]
If profit margins are already huge, then the effect if price increases aren't so huge as I calculated above.

linzheming
[1:23 PM]
Maybe less than that.

zbingledack [1:24 PM]
For example if your costs are $1 per second and your revenue is $10/sec, you're making $9/sec.

If your revenue goes 10x, to $100/sec, while your costs stay the same at $1/sec, you're now making $99/sec.

Just a 10x profit increase on a 10x price increase. Until new hashpower comes online.

[1:25]
Much less than the 100x increase on a 10x price rise. So current margin matters a lot.

linzheming
[1:25 PM]
All miners doing hedging. That costs if price increases.

zbingledack [1:25 PM]
What kind of hedging? (edited)

[1:26]
Futures shorting?

linzheming
[1:26 PM]
They will lose part of bitcoin by shorting it using future trading.

zbingledack [1:26 PM]
Ah yes

[1:27]
So it depends on how heavily they are hedged

linzheming
[1:27 PM]
That helps stabilizing the price.

[1:28]
Maybe 30% to 50%

zbingledack [1:45 PM]
You mean if the BTC price doubles, the miners only feel a 50% to 70% increase in revenue (or do you mean in profit)?

[1:46]
And if it halves they only feel a 15% to 25% loss of revenue (or profit)?

komakino [3:24 PM]
joined hardfork by invitation from @klee, along with @wizzardtim. Also, @ola joined, @trevinhofmann joined, @ryanxcharles joined, @clemens joined.


----- Today June 14th, 2017 -----
freetrader [2:46 AM]
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/
blog.bitmain.com
UAHF: A contingency plan against UASF (BIP148) - blog.bitmain.com
Definitions UASF: User Activated Soft Fork. Developers add a mandatory rule set to change the node’ software, invalidating certain kinds of previously valid blocks after a flag day. This method requires no mining majority to support or activate a chain-split. The UASF proposal intends to make a 51% attack against the blockchain that has the …
Today at 12:50 AM

phoenix
[2:47 AM]
it's finally happening damnit

pesa [2:48 AM]
in layman's?

freetrader [2:49 AM]
The blog article uses quite good layman's terms.

[2:49]
Big block HF without re-org risk, and with replay protections so everyone will be able to trade safely.

[2:50]
At least 3 dev teams developing implementations for it.

[2:51]
One of the conditions of miners doing this is strong market sentiment in favor of a big block Bitcoin chain.

[2:51]
There will be no upper limit to block size in the future, but big miners will constrain themselves to starting off with 2MB blocks.

phoenix
[2:52 AM]
and a hard limit at 8MB for now, right ?

[2:52]
2MB is the soft limit

freetrader [2:52 AM]
The "hard limit" is actually enforced by configurable setting in client (EB)


phoenix
[2:53 AM]
yep

freetrader [2:53 AM]
2MB is what big miners will generate initially (they are always free to choose what size they put out)

[2:53]
The real block size will depend on network demand.

[2:53]
Lot's of people using? Blocks get bigger.

[2:53]
Nobody using? No need to produce huge blocks.

[2:54]
gtg.
Fun times!
:popcorn:


cryptorebel [2:54 AM]
I like this: "The block size will not be a part of hard-coded consensus rule for us in the future after the fork block. Miners who generate large blocks will be punished by economic incentives, but not limiting the block size." not sure if it means soft limit or hard limit though

[2:55]
soft limit I guess since hard limit will be 8MB

phoenix
[2:59 AM]
Yes, this is full on EC.


freetrader [3:35 AM]
https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec
GitHub
Bitcoin-UAHF/spec
Technical specifications


[3:36]
Clients which will want to remain in consensus will need two things:
1. let user configure their max blocksize.
2. be able to handle the opt-in replay protection scheme published in the spec (it is two-way protection)

[3:37]
The replay protection is based on already well-tested code (BIP143, adapted to remove the SegWit aspects).

[3:37]
But don't worry, there will be clients with comprehensive tests.

[3:39]
I figure that the links to the sources will become public soon enough to give everyone about two months to study, steal code to adapt their own systems, and upgrade their nodes if they decide to follow the fork.

[3:39]
Ok, more like 48 days.

[3:39]
Now I _really_ have to go, bbl .

pesa [4:02 AM]
Interesting how almost all discussion on HF/SegWit/SegWit2X never consider nChain or CSW

[4:02]
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6h1wpr/segwit2x_a_summary/
reddit
SegWit2x: A Summary • r/btc
Here's what we would **potentially** get following both the softfork and hardfork stages of SegWit2x: - ~4MB blocks. - weight discount...


[4:02]
the alternatives are always a mixed set of 'what we know'

[4:03]
never accounting for the emergence of a radically new alternative from a radically new faction

phoenix
[4:05 AM]
I'm sorry, but what is there to consider right now ?

pesa [4:06 AM]
depends on who you ask

phoenix
[4:06 AM]
I'm asking you

pesa [4:06 AM]
all the options above + CSWs assertions on thread private,

phoenix
[4:07 AM]
Code, research, proposals etc ? Are they there to put side by side with everything else that _is_ ? (edited)

[4:08]
till they are I can't consider anything, and neither will anyone else.

pesa [4:08 AM]
i will :slightly_smiling_face:

[4:08]
my point exactly

[4:09]
that seems to be the reasoning of Core, pro-Core and pro-UASF supporters

csw [4:09 AM]
Nor do you need to.... yet

[4:09]
:)

phoenix
[4:09 AM]
thanks craig


pesa [4:09 AM]
Just because they can't see it, they assume X alternatives

[4:10]
its an easy way to lose 'the game'


phoenix
[4:11 AM]
anyway @pesa, I don't have much more to tell you if you call this reasoning only partial to Core. (edited)

pesa [4:12 AM]
not just Core, see thread on r/btc. its everyone who doesnt have the whole picture - partial information

[4:13]
you too it seems, as you need hard evidence to consider other laternatives

[4:14]
when i saw Jon Matonis announce he's joining nChain, and the sudden emergence of nChain, i knew something was up


[4:14]
Jon is not crazy at all. And for a while, he was talking up miners and hashing power

csw [4:15 AM]
The best plans are not public until they are...

pesa [4:15 AM]
then followed the trail that led me to this thread, and found out nChain has a bagful of patents

phoenix
[4:15 AM]
@csw could you please explain to your disciple some epistemology ?


csw [4:15 AM]
120 or so

[4:16]
Busy day... Remind me tomorrow @phoenix

phoenix
[4:16 AM]
:wink:

klee [5:52 AM]
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/874863403067731969

[5:52]
I am scared

brad1121 [5:54 AM]
I always enjoy a little bit of luke drama

phoenix
[6:03 AM]
ah those promises again, Luke is going full crusader it seems. Deus Vult

[6:04]
people are going to lose money because of these assholes

vlad2vlad [6:16 AM]
People are going to lose fortunes cause of these assholes.
1 reply Today at 6:59 AM View thread

gregnie [6:17 AM]
I don’t think so.

[6:18]
If the minority chain got attacked, they can’t trade right?

phoenix
[6:22 AM]
if they get blocks in time they might have some time to transfer to exchanges

[6:22]
can you imagine the fees though ?

[6:22]
the congestion?

gregnie [6:24 AM]
Even you have 6 confirmations , you are not safe, and it’s very difficult to transfer.

[6:27]
The exchanges won’t accept deposit after the fork, unless the minority chain is stable for a while(maybe a few month).

phoenix
[6:27 AM]
I'm sure several will anticipate this and have coins in exchanges already

[6:27]
no exchange will stop trading, it's a golden opportunity for them to make money

[6:28]
perhaps it won't be the coins themselves, as many of these won't exist until the fork takes place, so maybe they'll have placeholders or something instead.

gregnie [6:30 AM]
yes, they may provide futures for trade. But it’s impossible to accept deposit if it’s not safe enough.

phoenix
[6:33 AM]
lots of planning for them ahead, gonna be a hot summer

erik.beijnoff [6:59 AM]
vlad2vlad: People already have in lost opportunity