7 ms·

I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold (which in

I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold (which in the past have had backdoors). They profit from using an exploit called ASICBOOST. Segwit will disable ASICBOOST as a side effect of improving the protocol. Therefore, BitMain has been launching FUD campaigns and numerous attempts to propose alternative software to stop segwit (XT, BU, BTC1, BTCABC etc.) Segwit2X is a compromise-- but Bitmain does not like it because it activates segwit. So BitMain has announced they plan to do a forcible Hard Fork of Bitcoin, splitting off into another chain, that they will privately mine-- and they intend to neutralize segwit on it. They have publicly complained that segwit offers lower fees for transactions that use less resources. The entire conflict (including the "scaling problems" which have recently been proven to be due to spam driving up transaction costs) is Bitmain attempting to increase and protect their near monopoly. Please be aware that their fork, which will have nearly unlimited block size will increase their monopoly. Due to the great firewall of china, large blocks have trouble getting transmitted, so whenever a chinese miner finds a block, when the blocks are very big, they have a significant competitive advantage in finding the next block. Thus simply activating a spam campaign (which they have been doing the past 3 months or so already) will allow them to centralize mining in china because the chinese miners will start getting 2-3 blocks ahead. Further on their hard fork they can easily lower the difficulty and get many blocks ahead while private mining (but make it look like the difficulty is higher) -- admittedly a speculation but given their past exploits and announced plans to engage in further shady behavior I would not be surprised. Here's the blog post where they announce their (very sketchy) hard fork: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/ https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip14...

lawn 9y ago
This is the main narrative being pushed by Blockstream and Core who are afraid of loosing control over the main Bitcoin reference client, beware. > I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold False, bitcoin mining has never been as decentralized as it is now: https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks > Segwit2X is a compromise-- but Bitmain does not like it because it activates segwit. False, they are signaling Segwit2X and have been open to support segwit (except the arbitrary discount). > So BitMain has announced they plan to do a forcible Hard Fork of Bitcoin, splitting off into another chain, that they will privately mine-- and they intend to neutralize segwit on it. As per your own link, this is a plan against the UASF fork. > They have publicly complained that segwit offers lower fees for transactions that use less resources. And instead they back bigger blocks and flexible transactions which would give them even lower fees? If your statement was true then they wouldn't do that. > The entire conflict (including the "scaling problems" which have recently been proven to be due to spam driving up transaction costs) is Bitmain attempting to increase and protect their near monopoly. No, it is because Blockstream and Core wants to retain control. Do they support Segwit2X even when 90+ of all miner power signals it? No. Segwit as a soft fork is a crappy implementation and reduces the security of Bitcoin. See: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... Flexible Transactions is a superior proposal: https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/ https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  This is not a narrative, this is the technical facts. You're pushing a narrative. Bitcoin mining has never been as centralized as it is right now with one man controlling over %70 of the hash rate via multiple pools. Many of those pools are just the same player operating under different names. Segwit2X is in fact a compromise, and I linked to a blog post where Bitmain complains about it. They want to "activate segwit" but what they call segwit is not really segwit. The UAHF article I linked to is not Segwit2X it is a new hard fork they propose because they don't like Segwit2X. If they actually supported it they could just let it activate. They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.) You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. Bitcoin was designed to be a balance, and the only error satoshi made was not realizing that his PoW was vulnerable to ASICs, which have resulted in centralization. You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Alas they have spent a lot of money to dupe people like you into thinking they are the good guys. Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code. Here's the real threat to bitcoin-- people who are not developers are easily mislead by conspiracy theories backed up by thousands of shills posting this kind of crap narrative. Thanks for the down vote, too bad you didn't have a technical argument. The great firewall of china is not going away. The centralization threat is real. Segwit is the most tested code put out by core... and a whole lot better than the shitshow of alternatives we've seen put out by those who are trying to take over bitcoin.
  - lawn 9y ago
    You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is-hindering-bitcoins-progress-11cfa5c7964d https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is... > They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. > Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.) The censorship in those channels are well documented. > You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. You don't understand the point of PoW in Bitcoin. > You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Doesn't matter. And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. > Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code. Where are the technical arguments against these supposed "non technical FUD pieces"? You provide none.
RandVal30142 9y ago
>Segwit will disable ASICBOOST Incorrect. It would make 'stealth' ASICBoost mining improbable but still possible overall. > Therefore, BitMain has been launching FUD campaigns. Substantiate your claim. > proven to be due to spam Show it. Just show it already. Its a transparent blockchain but no one can show this spam, identify how it is malicious, show where it is coming from. Show the spam already. Like ASICBoost its an invisible horror used to terrorize people into supporting your narrative. This is not very nice.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Btc noob: What's wrong with asicboost? Is it just because it's patented?
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    It's an exploit that gives a miner a way to boost profits, but in order to do so, they have to mine empty blocks, which is bad for bitcoin because the purpose of miners is to build blocks with transactions in them.

lawn 9y ago

This is the main narrative being pushed by Blockstream and Core who are afraid of loosing control over the main Bitcoin reference client, beware. > I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold False, bitcoin mining has never been as decentralized as it is now: https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks > Segwit2X is a compromise-- but Bitmain does not like it because it activates segwit. False, they are signaling Segwit2X and have been open to support segwit (except the arbitrary discount). > So BitMain has announced they plan to do a forcible Hard Fork of Bitcoin, splitting off into another chain, that they will privately mine-- and they intend to neutralize segwit on it. As per your own link, this is a plan against the UASF fork. > They have publicly complained that segwit offers lower fees for transactions that use less resources. And instead they back bigger blocks and flexible transactions which would give them even lower fees? If your statement was true then they wouldn't do that. > The entire conflict (including the "scaling problems" which have recently been proven to be due to spam driving up transaction costs) is Bitmain attempting to increase and protect their near monopoly. No, it is because Blockstream and Core wants to retain control. Do they support Segwit2X even when 90+ of all miner power signals it? No. Segwit as a soft fork is a crappy implementation and reduces the security of Bitcoin. See: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... Flexible Transactions is a superior proposal: https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/ https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/

rothbardrand 9y ago
This is not a narrative, this is the technical facts. You're pushing a narrative. Bitcoin mining has never been as centralized as it is right now with one man controlling over %70 of the hash rate via multiple pools. Many of those pools are just the same player operating under different names. Segwit2X is in fact a compromise, and I linked to a blog post where Bitmain complains about it. They want to "activate segwit" but what they call segwit is not really segwit. The UAHF article I linked to is not Segwit2X it is a new hard fork they propose because they don't like Segwit2X. If they actually supported it they could just let it activate. They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.) You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. Bitcoin was designed to be a balance, and the only error satoshi made was not realizing that his PoW was vulnerable to ASICs, which have resulted in centralization. You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Alas they have spent a lot of money to dupe people like you into thinking they are the good guys. Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code. Here's the real threat to bitcoin-- people who are not developers are easily mislead by conspiracy theories backed up by thousands of shills posting this kind of crap narrative. Thanks for the down vote, too bad you didn't have a technical argument. The great firewall of china is not going away. The centralization threat is real. Segwit is the most tested code put out by core... and a whole lot better than the shitshow of alternatives we've seen put out by those who are trying to take over bitcoin.
- lawn 9y ago
  You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is-hindering-bitcoins-progress-11cfa5c7964d https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is... > They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. > Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.) The censorship in those channels are well documented. > You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. You don't understand the point of PoW in Bitcoin. > You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Doesn't matter. And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. > Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code. Where are the technical arguments against these supposed "non technical FUD pieces"? You provide none.

RandVal30142 9y ago

>Segwit will disable ASICBOOST Incorrect. It would make 'stealth' ASICBoost mining improbable but still possible overall. > Therefore, BitMain has been launching FUD campaigns. Substantiate your claim. > proven to be due to spam Show it. Just show it already. Its a transparent blockchain but no one can show this spam, identify how it is malicious, show where it is coming from. Show the spam already. Like ASICBoost its an invisible horror used to terrorize people into supporting your narrative. This is not very nice.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Btc noob: What's wrong with asicboost? Is it just because it's patented?
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  It's an exploit that gives a miner a way to boost profits, but in order to do so, they have to mine empty blocks, which is bad for bitcoin because the purpose of miners is to build blocks with transactions in them.