Help Activate Segwit - Run a BIP148 node!!

Won't we just be outdone by the massive farms in China? If we get close won't they just buy more rigs to fuck us over?

>>2118833
Segwit will destroy bitcoin.

>>2118855
im open if you convince me, whats the argument?

>>2118863
Bitcoin becomes a settlement network with segwit. RIP P2P. Centralization inevitable.

>>2118863
Miners only make money if the rest of the network accepts their blocks. If everyone runs this, they have no option but play ball or stop making money.

Simply coordination and momentum is needed, thats all.

>>2118896
No...its becomes a centralized server like Paypal that can refuse to let your wallet connect, refuse to propagate your transactions, and completely rape your privacy if they let you do either because they see every connection and which addresses it is using.

>>2118896
Many people are mistaken on that. Firstly, SegWit is a much needed bugfix. It enables more useful scripting mechanisms, which any higher layer linking to it inheret the trustlessness of the blockchain layer. It does not centralize anything, nor benefit any company or group in any way, it really is a major enabling upgrade to bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot be massively scaled by increasing blocks, by putting more strain on nodes (for no reason considering SegWit exists) you centralize the network which is entirely made up of nodes.

>>2118908
(if we DON'T get Segwit, and just let retards like Jihan "solve scaling" by "raising muh blocksize.")

>>2118855
Clueless numpties like you will destroy Bitcoin. "Muh Paypal!" Its not like they constantly freeze accounts or seize balances or anything right?/s

File: Screenshot_58.jpg (40KB, 397x399px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 397x399px

think about what LTC did after it got segwit.
DO IT FOR THE MOON.
5000$+ BTC

>>2118863
Segwit won't destroy Bitcoin, but it is all part of a ploy for Blockstream to control the settlement network.

Blockstream needs to monetize the Lightning network ASAP. Problem is, no one will use it if on-chain transactions are cheap. As a result, they've dug in their heels for the last two years and reneged despite having promised previous blocksize increases (see the Hong Kong Agreement).

There's no technical limitation that meaningfully limits a 2-8MB+ block size. But Core has shilled and censored reddit and other areas with various arguments, discarding the arguments as needed to fit their agenda. Core is scared of BU, because BU allows for a dynamic scaling that would increase the block-size as it becomes feasible for miners to do so. And if the blocksize can expand as bandwidth and other factors expand, what happens? Easy, little-to-no demand for Lightning and other off chain solutions for YEARS. Blockstream can't have that.

And guess what happened when most miners clearly rejected Segwit? Oh, suddenly the narrative changes. Miners don't matter anymore. Hashrate doesn't matter in determining the next block. "We don't like how the votes have fallen, so let's change the votes!". Then you have ridiculous calls to change the POW, etc. Ridiculous. And that's where this UASF comes in. It's silly and stupid. The number of nodes running UASF don't really matter at all. It's a pure intimidation ploy by core to try and force miners and others to switch.


Now look, I don't think I'm crazy. Segwit in and of itself isn't bad. It's not the end of the world. Certainly other tech has been suggested, like xthin blocks, that has been passed over by core simply because it's not Segwit and not-Segwit derails lightning. It effectively increases the number of transactions per block, a little, sort of in a roundabout way. And it allows for faster block verification. But it's ultimately about Blockstream making money off of Lightning through a crippled blocksize.

File: BjSwMpl.png (655KB, 800x539px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 800x539px

>>2118946

>>2118833

FUCK YOU Luke Dash Jr and rape your segshit, go back to your swamp nigger

>>2118971
This is complete delusional nonsense. Blockstream does not make Lightning Network. Does not control Lightning Network. It is an _OPEN PROTOCOL_.

Lightning.network

That is the _entirely separate company_ that developed Lightning Network.

Writing a few paragraphs in a civil tone doesn't mean shit, this entire post is 100% bullshit.

>>2118848

Nodes don't have any hashpower. Miners can do whatever they want regardless. It doesn't matter at all if your stupid do-nothing node runs BIP148. What matters is that the Bitcoin economy gets behind Segwit or not. If exchanges recognize BIP148, then Miners won't have their coins recognized unless they're mining segwit blocks.

>>2118971
"Hashrate doesn't matter in determining the next block. "

No one is saying that numpty. What we are saying is _THAT IS ALL THEY MATTER FOR._

They do not set the rules, or vote on the rules, or have anything to do with the rules. They mine blocks within the rules everyone else sets together. End of story.

>>2118988
Tell me, how does Blockstream plan to make money?

>>2119005
Its like you are a clueless numpty just born into the world today with no notion of how the world works...

Ever hear of Redhat? Ever notice how they were able to monetize themselves with consultant services and developing special purpose features? Ever actually __LOOK AT THE CODE FOR ANYTHING__?

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements

Ever notice how that has absolutely no dependency on Segwit whatsoever? And still has value regardless of how the mainchain works because the blocksize has nothing to do with confirmation times, lack of privacy(that many companies are legally required to have to interact with financial systems), or a slew of other problems totally disconnected from Segwit?

Go back to the womb numpty.

>>2118999
Anyone can mine any block, it's up to miners to build off of that block. That's how rules are enforced. The longest chain with the greatest proof of work is Bitcoin.

>>2119031
Longest _VALID_ chain. What is valid is decided by the users.

Can you explain how segwit works in slightly simplified manner?

>>2119030
you did not answer his questions and i didn't understand the point you made either

>>2119030
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42nx74/unmasking_the_blockstream_business_plan/

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

If you doubt me, remember this:

1. Core will cripple the blocksize indefinitely, expanding only if it's absolutely necessary to keep Bitcoin afloat while preserving the need for Lightning.

2. /r/bitcoin's rules will be bent, broken and ignored when such omissions make the case for Segwit and Lightning.

3. Amicable solutions that undermine the demand for Lightning will be bashed.

4. The narrative will change as needed to implement Segwit.

>>2118971
I've been asking the following to every single person who says SegWit is a ploy to make money for Blockstream for the last year now: how, exactly, does Blockstream plan to make money off of the lightning network or segwit? I'm seriously open to it but nobody has answered that question.

>>2119038
Valid only in terms of cryptographic hash.

Consensus is determined by hashrate. Read the white paper.

>>2119063
>https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42nx74/unmasking_the_blockstream_business_plan/

>>2119050
it organizes transaction data in a block more effectively and makes it safe to spend unconfirmed outputs (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Techncially its "transaction malleability" which is being fixed by segwit, a number of nifty scripting mechanisms can be utilized by segwit.

>>2119064
valid as in the consensus rules, which nodes enforce. the node network is like a market that demands blocks, miners dont get to decide consensus, they participate in it though by running nodes, if the consensus does not validate a block they mine, they wont make money. nodes determine consensus. originally the whitepaper appears to suggest all nodes are mining nodes but even though we have a seperation these days does not mean that the mining process enforces anything, it simply creates blocks which may or may not be accepted by the network of nodes.

>>2119072
To add, it effectively pulls out some data from the block (witness data) and straps that along.

Effectively that means more transactions per block, the same way that strapping luggage to the roof of your car increases the cargo room of your car. You still need more data in total for these transactions, but since you've artificially parked the size of the block itself at 1 MB, well, there's more transactions per block.

>>2118833
>everyone switches to BIP148
>everyone has to transfer to BIP148 addresses
>everyone has to pay an increasing fee due congestion
>everyone pushes their transfer so unconfirmed transactions go exponential
>everyone walks the dinosaur

>>2119083
Tell me how you know "the nodes" have determined whether one of two blocks mined is part of the blockchain or not.


Answer: You can't. Satoshi realized that nodes can be faked, duplicated and spammed, and as a result used hashpower as the principal by which consensus rules are dictated on the network.

Sure, the Bitcoin economy itself can be influential in determining what miners mine. If all the exchanges don't recognize a transaction, that's going to influence what miners mine. That doesn't change the fact that the Blockchain itself determines consensus.

Remember vertcoin and LTC have already gone Segwit.

I think because BTC is activating it, the mainstream coins will be- in terms of how they compliment each other the way we do in American fiat- prices below are NOT the values that I believe each coin will end up being compared to USD it's just an example of how they will compliment each other the way USD bills do. I confident in all 3 of these and am holding them, as opposed to my pump and dump day trades.

BTC- like holding a 20 dollar bill
LTC- like holding a 5 dollar
VTC- like holding a $1

>>2119050
It takes the signature data, and moves it to a new section of the block. This solves a problem where transaction IDs can be changed and confuse software/make it harder to build features that depend on referencing unconfirmed transactions.

It makes fees cheaper, and allows further upgrades that will bring down the transaction size overall down through compressing signatures, and make fees even cheaper over time. (And make fees for transactions with lots of inputs MUCH cheaper.)

>>2119064
Valid in terms of being valid under the rules you operate. A whitepaper is a rough introduction to something, not a Bible.

Numpty.

>>2119107
There is no such thing as a BIP148 address..its a regular address. #Bullshit

>>2119113
The blockchain itself determines consensus? Are you retarded? What if two miners decide to just start mining different chains for a really juicy block full of fees and never converge again?

Consensus is between all nodes numpty. Users are the economy.

File: IMG_1602.jpg (250KB, 1920x1362px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1920x1362px

>>2119155
I'm undecided, but slightly leaning towards running a bip148 node from the shitshow. 200000+ unconfirmed transactions is ridiculous. That said, I'm pretty ignorant overall and want a dumber explanation of this structure.

Is the signature data where bitcoin transactions are stored?
How does moving its location make it harder to build on unconfirmed transactions?
I'm guessing it makes fees cheaper by making it less work for a miner to confirm that an unconfirmed transaction is legitimate somehow, is that so? If not, how does it lower fees?
And >>2118908 ? is this sarc?

thx 4 answers. pic unrelated

>>2118855
>t. Ching Chong Ding Dong, ASIC manufacturer

>>2120680
It has to do with the cryptography and how a TX ID is made. The ID is made by hashing the transaction, and without pulling the signature out it can be "malleated" and changed without making the transaction invalid. This is because of how the math of the cryptography works, there are two polar opposite (on a graph plane) signatures that are both cryptographically valid but different. People can mess with that while relaying a transaction and have it still be valid. This makes it risky to do things like build long chains of transactions(when one at the start being malleated can invalidate all), and makes it risky to leave payment channels open too long(because people could try and cheat you with malleated transactions you aren't looking for).

Its cheaper because the signature data is essentially a discount for the sat/Kb rate because further upgrades after segwit will trim that data down to a huge degree. This is so that its not too much more expensive to spend a bunch of small inputs vs. one large one.

As far as the Paypal comment, that was not sarcastic. If only large centralized servers are running nodes, they can refuse to validate your transactions, refuse to propagate them, if enough got together they could just erase your money and move on like nothing happened. The rules are what nodes enforcing them say. If only a very tiny group is running nodes, its alot easier to change important rules of Bitcoin.

Its UASF or bust at this point.

>>2119173
>What if two miners decide to just start mining different chains for a really juicy block full of fees and never converge again?

Then the longest proof of work chain dictates consensus. People can already mine different chains if they like, but it's unfeasible because they don't have enough hashpower.

File: jaredbannon.jpg (111KB, 1484x989px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1484x989px

NoCoiner here. What's stopping some hebrew from making 100 million nodes on 100 million different IPv6 addresses to stop this?

>>2118996
>Miners can do whatever they want regardless.
They can, but they would lose money. UASF forces them to comply with users or go out of business

File: 0wF6tn3.jpg (786KB, 2055x2433px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 2055x2433px

>>2119059
Daily reminder that niggers like this are paid by Roger and Jihan to astroturf (or he's an idiot victim of astroturfing). Jihan has literally only one mining facility outside China, and that is in ISRAEL.
(((they))) are using bullshit conspiracy theories to try and control btc, just like they do with Trump and Russia. It's the same handbook of subversion, don't fall for it anons.

>>2122389
>the longest proof of work chain dictates consensus
this is wrong

>>2122816
Nothing. This is why nodes don't determine anything in and of themself. Hash rate does.

>>2122923
Read the whitepaper. Absolutely does. If a chain gets built upon and with the most work, that's the current state of the ledger.

>taking the segwit bluepill
>Not taking the SW+2mb or more block size redpill
Effective 3-4x current block sizes.

>m-muh rpi node, muh decentralization
Fuck off, this is the 21st century where 75%+ of mainland Europe and developed Asian countries could afford to run a full node with 4mb+ blocks. Some black cunt in Africa or south America shouldn't set the minimum requirements when 1Gb/s residential connections and sub $30/TB hard drives are commonplace.

Blockstream shill please go

>>2119173
Nodes =/ users

Go ahead and split away with your new altcoin. Nobody cares

>>2124268
>Read the whitepaper. Absolutely does.
it doesn't. The economic majority decides what the true chain is. Hashrate simply follows economic majority, so at a certain point the chain abandoned by the user is neglected by miners to avoid going out of business.
Basically even if a chain is longer at the beginning through hashrate, that short term advantage is pointless and doesn't mean anything. It's in the long-run that the longest chain wins, because in the long-run miners must follow the economic majority or lose all their money.
>If a chain gets built upon and with the most work, that's the current state of the ledger.
Stop browsing r/btc. That place is 90% sockpuppet shills and 10% retards that don't understand btc

>>2124788
Segwit already improves throughput 4x. There is no reason to have +2mb. There are countless reasons why it is retarded to use that compromise. One of them being that it creates a precedent where the direction of BTC is decided by politics and some handful of influential rich people rather than mathematics and code. In the long-run that is very bad for btc's credibility. Another reason is that you have to use adversarial thinking: better safe than sorry regarding security. Even the slightest move towards centralization is a good vector attack for state actors (remember that the financial system wants to destroy btc). Last but not least it took 17 months to prepare the system to accomodate Segwit. The only choice we have is to either do Segwit NOW, or to wait about 17 months until the new proposal is fully tested and ready to be deployed (that includes Segwit + 2mb compromise). Do you think we have all that time? I think we're better off not waiting that much.

>>2124813
>>2124956
go back to your cuckshed roger

>>2124972
Segwit only improves by about 2x tops, the SW+2MB was actually put forward as a compromise in the Hong Kong agreement but blockstream didn't hold up their end of the bargain - and all they had to do was properly investigate working in the 2mb limit into core code in preparation.

>>2125039
>Segwit only improves by about 2x tops
in practice it is 4x
>the SW+2MB was actually put forward as a compromise in the Hong Kong agreement but blockstream didn't hold up their end of the bargain -
This is bullshit. First of all in the HK agreement it was just some people speaking for themselves and not representative of Core at all. Secondly it was miners who broke the agreement first. Also stop conflating Blockstream with Core. Blockstream isn't even remotely the biggest contributor in Core ffs. These meme conspiracy theories are really low effort.
>and all they had to do was properly investigate working in the 2mb limit into core code in preparation.
Segwit is literally the compromise. It achieves more than a simple 2mb hard fork in throughput, it allows are lot more fixes to the code, it is safer, and it paves the way for the Lightning Network.
The only reason why miners are blocking it is because of their covert ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED, and also because the current high fees are a literal godsend to them. You are just a retard that fell for astroturfing propaganda, open your damn eyes.

>>2125039
btw, there has never been a planned hard fork in btc, every fork was in practice a soft fork like Segwit is