Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 15, 2017, 06:12:59 AM

Part 1 - AgentofCoin's delusions.
AgentofCoin's delusional began right from the start, so let's go back to the beginning, when he tried to bullshit jonald_fyookball with his own delusion on page 1.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 07:45:57 PM

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 07:45:57 PM

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

Notice how:
1. AgentofCoin defines a new reality right from the get go.
2. AgentofCoin then began to describe that delusion: When the miners signed the HK agreement, they had no idea ASICBoost wouldn't work. Miners would never support SegWit if there is a 'new coinbase reference' ('new coinbase reference' is AgentofCoin's way of discribing the 'witness root hash', the thing in the coinbase that makes ASICBoost useless.)
3. AgentofCoin also claimed Jihan only pulled support from SegWit after he realized ASICBoost would not work on SegWit.
In short, AgentofCoin is claiming miners would not agree to any proposal that makes ASICBoost useless.
Note that this argument is what AgentofCoin insisted to the end, it is the main argument that all his other delusion/sub-argument/prophecies/personal-attacks are base on, if this is proven false, at least 80% of the bullshit he posted after is also false.

Now let's do a reality check:
1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. (Source).
2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost, because the coinbase has something call the 'witness root hash'. Quote BIP-141:'The new commitment in coinbase transaction is a hash of the witness root hash' (Link).
3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit), in which it stated the 'witness root hash' contains a list of 'wtxid', when witness is not used, wtxid value is the same as normal txid. So, the 'witness root hash' contains a list of transaction id, this is what makes ASICBoost incompatible.
4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016. (So is Ext Block, because it is base on BIP-141 aka SegWit)
5. Miners had almost a month to find out that ASICBoost wouldn't work with SegWit, before the signing of the agreement.
6. Miners continued to support SegWit long after the agreement was signed.
7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement. The 'witness root hash' hasn't changed much since.
8. Jihan, as one of the agreement's signatory, had plenty of time to learn that ASICBoost wouldn't work on SegWit.
9. Remember, AgentofCoin is a guy who kept arguing over Jihan could learn about SegWit changes in 1hr or 2hr, so 28 days should be plenty for Jihan to learn that SegWit wouldn't work for ASICBoost.

What your fatal flaw in your reasoning is that your timeline of events does not
expound upon anything other than what the community already knows. My
original comment to Jonald was pointing out that Jonald was taking the situation
at face value. You yourself have done so as well. You do not attempt to understand
why things occurred as they did. You use what superficially did occur, as evidence
of miners individual innocence and good faith. That is an incorrect connection and
cannot be found in your outline.

What you are accusing me of, is exactly what you are now doing. What your current
argument really is, is that since a person came to the police station and willingly
gave some information about a murder, that person must not be the murderer.
That is your whole argument in its simplest form and does not prove that the person
who willingly went to the police station is NOT the murderer. Your timeline has lots
of points and time aspects, but has no deductions or actual analysis to fit your final
belief.

You wanted to attack my passing statement to Jonald so strongly that you were
blinded to the fact that your explanation doesnt disprove what my opinion was
intended to convey. You nitpicked my wording to Jonald, which in the past you
accused me of doing incorrectly. You are a big hypocritical mess. My statement
to Jonald was intended to point out that he was assuming good faith of some
miners during the HK meeting and that was his only basis of belief.

I concluded that Antpool likely did not do their due diligence, because then why
would they willingly sign an agreement that broke their chips advantage? But, it
is possible they did do their due diligence, as you are arguing here, but then that
conclusion is that they went to the HK meeting knowing this important detail,
never telling other miners or devs about this detail, signing a document to use a
protocol change that damages this detail, and now you want the community to
believe that they always intended to follow through with the agreement and
disband future use of detail, only because they say they would have?

If we take your belief that they did know it breaks their ASICBoost aspect why
would they sign that agreement? They create hundreds, maybe thousands of chips
that contain that design for the purpose of current or future use. You want to
community to believe they did that to waste money and they were willing to take
that as a financial loss with the SegWit activation and future. That is naïve. Either
Antpool is dumb or you are. When I commented to Jonald, I assumed AntPool was
negligent, now due to your timeline, I think they were intentionally deceptive. That
is what you missed in your outline and glossed over. You never came to any possible
answers. You whole posting is designed to make me look like a bullshitter, but yet
you never prove my point wrong, just my phraseology.

Ultimately, your simplistic belief makes no sense over all. So the true motive and
answer is still missing and that is what the HK agreement/ASICBoost/SegWit current
debate is all about. Its about trying to understand what may be the deeper issues
here. Not the superficial that you outline and any person can do. Your kill switch so
far is lacking in the kill part. If anything it adds to my argument because you unwilling
or willing omitted elaborations or discussion into the inconsistencies.

So lets now talk about what you like to talk about: conspiracies. So here is an
interesting one that came from your superficial timeline. Without your timeline, I would
not have been able to articulate this, thank you. Please explain where I am wrong
in this as well:

If we assume you are correct about Antpool knowing SegWit broke their ASICBoost,
how could they look like they agree to use SegWit in the future when they do not
actually want to, and prevent any agreement from being fully fulfilled so they can
claimed the devs did not uphold their part of the agreement later? The only way I can
think of right now is to place a clause in the agreement that could have never been
performed or implemented because it is so contentious in the community. And what
clause was in the agreement that the devs stated they couldnt do, but the miners kept
pushing the issue for inclusion? The 2MB hardfork clause. The ASICBoost miners used
the 2MB hardfork clause as a mechanism to dissolve the HK agreement at a later date,
knowing full well it could never have been done. In addition, Antpool would hold out
many months after that fact, when other miners were already calling fail, because they
wanted to cover their true motives of ASICboost. They waited so long after the deadline
because they wanted to portray themselves as you are now doing, as a victim of the big
bad devs. So you are doing their dirty work by helping protect their conspiracy from
the beginning. You are a part of their plan to dissolve the HK agreement thus freeing
them from needing to use SegWit. That is why your timeline does not expand on any
issues or deductions and jumps to an incorrect conclusion that AntPool wanted SegWit
and would have always used it, even though it voided their patents.

So, if my conspiracy conclusion is right, you are either a moron or working for obfuscation,
which I stated to Jonald on page 1. You can never prove your stand point of this issue from
what you provided. If anything, it shows problems and inconsistencies with Antpools
overall argument.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 15, 2017, 06:12:59 AM

'witness root hash'
'witness root hash' is what makes ASICBoost meaningless, this is common knowledge to those familiar with the basics of SegWit and ASICBoost.
A quote from the Dev & Tech forum mod will prove this:

Quote from: achow101 on April 06, 2017, 06:55:11 PM

Re: just out of curiousity, why would segwit impact asicboost
This is due to the witness root hash which must be included in the coinbase transaction.

So now we know that:
1. AgentofCoin is delusional or dishonest.
2. AgentofCoin likes to make statements that are simply not true.
3. AgentofCoin likes to argue with people using his delusion/dishonesty.
4. AgentofCoin likes to pretend to understand how miners think.
5. AgentofCoin likes to think he knows more than the miners.
6. AgentofCoin does not have the basic knowledge required to talk about ASICBoost and SegWit.
7. AgentofCoin likes to describe his delusion/lies in more details that are completely made up, instead of keep quiet when he doesn't understand what is being discussed.
8. AgentofCoin is the kind of guy that'll bullshit to the end unless you utterly expose him, even then, he might still continue his bullshit.

We also know that:
At least 80% of AgentofCoin's argument is this thread is now proved to be false, because AgentofCoin based those arguments on:
1. Miners would not have known that SegWit was incompatible with ASICBoost when they signed the agreement.
2. Miners would not support any proposal that support ASICBoost.

When you stack one bullshit on top of another, all people need to do is crack open the first one, and the entire bullshit structure falls apart like a house of cards.
Now we've established AgentofCoin is a delusional lying retard who likes to talk shit.
Let's move onto part 2 and talk about his 'prophecies'.

Wonderful. Your attacks on me once again make you look like a horses ass.
Nothing you stated prior proved you right. All that you did was say you think
miners had one month to test on SegWit and I said I didnt think they did yet.
Wow wee you are a genius. How many days did it take you to write this crap
again?

Your whole argument to prove me wrong is based on one of my comments to
Jonald taken to an extreme that I never argued as an absolute and then you apply
it to every comment I made after the fact, like a robot. Because you say or believe
something doesnt make it so. Too bad for you, your simple mind is stuck in your
self created box.

Hey everyone, look Alex.BTC got me because I said miners didnt do their due
diligence. Onh no, he says they did, So Im wrong about everything I ever said
about numerous and separate issues. Oh no..

Please Alex.BTC, if this was part 1 of the Kill Switch I really hope Part 2 is better.
Your whole argument against me is based on a single sentence with phraseology
you dont like. Meanwhile I crafted a conspiracy theory from your timeline that is
more likely then AntPool agreeing to willing break their chips and patents.

You try so hard to cover the miners asses you might as well kiss them instead.