Quote from: Daedra on February 01, 2017, 11:55:00 AM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 01, 2017, 09:47:21 AM

I find it really, really frustrating that you have a room full of otherwise hyperintelligent people, who were told in very clear terms by the Chinese miners what those miners want about a year ago (a hardfork increasing the max blocksize limit for the present type of transactions to at least 2 megabytes), and today, you have the same people asking in frustration why Chinese miners are not adopting segwit when those miners said in bright blinking cleartext a year ago what it is they want, and it is not segwit.

Do you think we must be controlled by Chinese miners? I would prefer decentralization

how it works

pools wont change the rules unless they see unanimous or high majority of nodes will accept any change a pool makes.
otherwise a reject occurs and the change was worthless..

pools dont have power because they need node acceptance.

pools wont decide what to do unless they see nodes want and will accept it.
w are not controlled by pools. but blockstream have by-passed a node vote to make it just a pool vote. so that if the election wins devs can take the glory and say their election wins.. or if not. then blockstream devs can play the victim card and shout racial abuse or suggest that pools are bad communists and that blockstream should do a bilateral split and kill the commi's.

this is why i hate people spouting out the racial slurs of people trying to insinuate the pools are colluding and controlling bitcoin.. because its playing blockstream games even if they the racial taunters oppose blockstream.

hense why it should not have been a node-bypassing vote, and devs wanting only pools to vote. because pools are still going to wait for what nodes want to do even if nodes dont get a vote.

any drastic changes that can cause a node to reject or even not validate at all(blind pass-it-on 'backward compatible') should still be a full hard CONSENSUS vote.

also funny that when talking soft or hard. core love to talk about best case scenario soft but worse case hard. but never the opposite.
pretending that instead of atleast 6 options there are only 2

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

here is the blockstream CTO calling out for a soft. yes soft bilateral split(only needs pools to change something). which ends up causing the a hard bilateral split(nodes banning other nodes and data)

Quote from: gmaxwell on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

lucky pools and all non-cor implementation devs rejected maxwells proposal. and instead laughed at him for even suggesting it.

here he is again suggesting if pools dont vote his way he will soft bilateral split the network to get his way.

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

yep soft can also cause split too.

what should have always been the case is a full hard CONSENSUS vote vote.

nodes first, get to 95% to give pools confidence. then pools second to activate and also give the remaining 5% of nodes time to upgrade/decide too.