Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

Then wtf was the point of the meeting? Just a few dev hanging around stroking each other's dicks?
There was a huge blocksize debate at the time, pressure was on Core to increase the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core fucked everyone over by pretending to support 2MB block increase.
If nothing was agreed upon, then there would have been another meeting for the blocksize issue, but nope, Blockstream/Core played everyone, now nobody trust anything they say.

I really don't understand why they went. I thought it was just to talk things over.
To explain their viewpoints and future goals/plans. Not to place anything in writing.
A few Core devs and Back of Blockstream do not have authority over the other Core
devs. I think it was a gigantic misunderstanding because of different issues.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Now you're just shilling for Blockstream/Core.
The fact is the exact opposite. Blockstream/Core is still fucking everyone over by keeping blocksize at 1MB.
SegWit gets merged by Core without a word (and still have less support than BU).
Blocksize increase pull request instantly get closed by Blockstream co-founder on Github.

I'm not shilling, that is my recollection at the time.

Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during
the HK meeting was way too high.

And yes, some BIPs about direct blocksize increases have been closed, but because the
plan is for optimizations first. The issue isn't about "trying to stop anything beyond 1MB",
since the whole community knows we will need to raise it eventually. A few small minority
of small blockers are "1MB 4EVAs!", but the rest of us want new ideas and optimizations
to the protocol that can increase TPS before we simply change the blocklimit with a hardfork.
It was always about optimizations and security, then onchain scaling. Bigblockers, like you I
presume, want that in reverse, which smallblockers think compromises security.

We, as a community, should request optimizations of the blockspace, before we increase
that space. If we can just bump it up all the time, there is no incentive to develop new
ideas and concepts to improve the protocol. SegWit may or may not be accepted as the
standard one day, but I accept that may be the reality and that should prove to you I am
not a shill for Core or Blockstream. I only want a decentralized and secure Bitcoin.
Though, I do support the current Core road map.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one. Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to perpetuate the obfuscations. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.

That's the problem with you trolls, you spending too much time on personal attacks and too little on facts.
I just don't like watching people going around making idiotic statements with zero proof then act like they are some kind of know-it-all authority on the future. If you have a theory, post it as a theory, don't state it as a matter of fact, then go for bullshit gymnastics and personal attacks when someone ask you for proof.

The "facts" you listed at the time, was a combination of your opinions and issues
that haven't been fully understood yet. Your argument to me is like:

Alex.BTC: "FACT: Humans will never find aliens in the universe!"
AgentofCoin: "That is not a fact, that is yet to be determined."
Alex.BTC: "Oh yeah?! Then prove it! Find me an alien now!"
AgentofCoin: "What? I'm not even an astronomer or astronaut."
Alex.BTC: "You troll! See! I hate you trolls. You need to prove it now!"

That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihans twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwells email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a cover my ass pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.

I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.

If you play with timezones I am sure you can pull out different numbers.
But that is just more of the same nitpicking on trivial bullshit.

At the end of the day you just don't know what the exact time was when Jihan learned about Extension Block, and the exact time when he decided to support it, it could have been hours it could have been days.
...

I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.

Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

This ASICBoost distraction is just a total bullshit, regardless of what Jihan did, if the code allow this shortcut, then any miners can build their own ASIC to use that shortcut, Jihan's patent only forbids others from selling it in China, not forbidding miners from building their own, so fix the damn code instead of blaming other people.

I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.

For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.

Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesnt even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.

The blocksize increase is the true issue, it has been for over a year, because it affects everyone's bottom line. It is ignorant for you to use tunnel vision and pin everything on ASICBoost when Jihan will also profit from a blocksize increase, there are many things in play here.

It doesn't matter who Jihan is, I expect him to do everything he can for his business, and right now he's speaking the truth and he's openly opposing BlockStream, and his words make sense, that's good enough for me.

That's what I don't like about you trolls, the blocksize limit is fucking up the network right now, it's already happening, and instead just acknowledging it, you idiots circle jerk around the issue then keep pointing fingers at someone else. Blockstream/Core is clearly the culprit here.

I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.

It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.

Thinking that 1MB temporary cap is killing the network, is a large oversimplification of the
issues at hand. We need to balance the scaling with security over time. If we don't we could
both lose everything. We are trying to preserve the network and you wish to expand it in a
blind risk with fingers crossed that it works out and doesn't kill the golden goose. I do not
think Satoshi was all knowing. He was wrong sometimes and a piece of proof of that was
that Satoshi added the 1MB limit after Hal explained the logic of it. Satoshi changed his
mind sometimes and that is what must be kept in our minds as we go forward. If we
expand the blocksize, we can not do it on the logic of Satoshi from 2010, but data
and knowledge of 2017.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 09, 2017, 11:12:57 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 09, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. Im sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.

You said Jihan have already used ASICBoost in production.
I asked you for proof.
You went for personal attack.
I out trolled you back.
Now you want a report?
What are you even on about?

You made the accusation.
I haven't seen any evidence.
So I asked you for them.
You talked shit.
So I dug a little, I found data that went against your claim.
So I showed that data to you, and asked you for evidence for your accusations again.
You tried to act like a smart ass, knowing full well you had nothing.
And instead of just man up and admit that.
You started 'lol'ing at the data I found.

It's like you have no idea how stupid you actually look.
And the funny part is you actually think people can't see through this shit.
Like at this point any of your insults actually do anything.

What's with the smartass teenager act anyway? Obviously you're not a teenager, who the fuck is going to respect some loud mouth finger pointing dumb fuck who can only ever talk shit.

No one should listen to me. I'm not here to get followers or something.
I came to learn and talk. We are talking now because we disagree about things.

You have provided no facts or data for anything you have stated prior, only opinion.
You want me, a noob, to analysis Antpool's block data in the blockchain and I don't
even know how to parse that data automatically with python code and all that. There
are more qualified members of this community who can do all forms of data mining
and also interpret that data correctly.

If you want me to cite some info from the community already I will:

- Antpool's stratum has code for covert and overt ASICBoost implemented
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/
- Electrum Wallet dev(s) says AntPool blocks/txs consistent with ASICBoost
https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/849974808259559425
- Four AntPool blocks that have the same Coinbase string data.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfydbca/

Those are just three different issues (I didn't include stuff about empty blocks).

Now, I will assume that you will say these people are biased or not trustworthy
because they are from Bitcoin reddit or they support Core or Blockstream and that
is fine, but once again I will advise you to be patient and eventually someone who is
independent and scientific will have pulled all the data and analyze it, and will
conclusively determine whether there is anything or there is nothing there.

By you arguing that it is my sole responsibility is ridiculous. That is like telling the
person who calls 911 to prove that there is an emergency before they will send the
police or ambulance. There are people who are experts who are working on this
issue and analyzing it right now. The Bitcoin world doesn't fall only on my shoulders,
but all of ours. Those who are capable will rise and help the community to determine
the truth.

You were the one who was prejudging the situation by telling people the facts were
that there is no evidence. I only said to you, that is currently still being determined.
Your the one who needs to prove that your original "facts" were facts, which I
disproved in my prior posting and determined to be 1 fact out of your 6 possible facts.

I want an investigation and you want no investigation. The question is, as a Bitcoiner,
why don't you want to know the result of an investigation? Maybe you will be proven
right. Why are you against that? That is the problem here. You don't seek truths.