bluematt

reddit.com
Why I think the blocksize-wars are over

posting this here and on the other sub. This could become interesting.So … I think blocksize-wars are over. We have an agreement.Like bluematt said: technically both sides are really near. If we scale with a 2MB HF or with SW is not a big deal. Both options should be safe and give us enough capacity for at least 1-2 years.The real war is political:One side thinks bitcoin has failed if the economy and the users can’t force the developers to raise the blocklimit.The other side thinks bitcoin has failed if the economy and the users can force the developers to raise the blocklimit.One side thinks Bitcoin should be a democracy.The other side thinks one of best things of bitcoin is that it is no democracy.Obviously both sides can’t agree since they are fundamentally different in their view on society. How can the war between them be over? Simply, if we accept that there are these two different worldviews and that we need to find a compromise no side completely loves but that is ok for everybody. I think we found it.The situation is: Classic will not get immediate super-majority of nodes and miners. There will be no fork soonishly, we will follow Core’s roadmap - while Core is no longer the sole ruler, the one and only party in Bitcoin’s governance.If Core fails to deliver enough space short enough, Classic will be still here and fork the network if the pressure becomes strong enough. Classic is the voice of the industry and of the users and it has some power.So, the solution is: we have a mechanism to ensure we get the capacity we need, while core still leads the way to real scalability. That’s an agreement and I can’t imagine

reddit.com
Why I think the blocksize-wars are over

posting this here and on the other sub. This could become interesting.So … I think blocksize-wars are over. We have an agreement.Like bluematt: technically both sides are really near. If we scale with a 2MB HF or with SW is not a big deal. Both options should be safe and give us enough capacity for at least 1-2 years.The real war is political:One side thinks bitcoin has failed if the economy and the users can’t force the developers to raise the blocklimit.The other side thinks bitcoin has failed if the economy and the users can force the developers to raise the blocklimit.One side thinks Bitcoin should be a democracy.The other side thinks one of best things of bitcoin is that it is no democracy.Obviously both sides can’t agree since they are fundamentally different in their view on society. How can the war between them be over? Simply, if we accept that there are these two different worldviews and that we need to find a compromise no side completely loves but that is ok for everybody. I think we found it.The situation is: Classic will not get immediate super-majority of nodes and miners. There will be no fork soonishly, we will follow Core’s roadmap - while Core is no longer the sole ruler, the one and only party in Bitcoin’s governance.If Core fails to deliver enough space short enough, Classic will be still here and fork the network if the pressure becomes strong enough. Classic is the voice of the industry and of the users and it has some power.So, the solution is: we have a mechanism to ensure we get the capacity we need, while core still leads the way to real scalability. That’s an agreement and I can’t imagine

reddit.com
Why is it a sin that samuraiwallet dns calls blockchain.info but okay that bitcoin core dns phones home to calls lukejr, whats the differance?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L102vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bitcoin.sipa.be”, “seed.bitcoin.sipa.be”)); // Pieter Wuille vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bluematt.me”, “dnsseed.bluematt.me”)); // Matt Corallo vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“dashjr.org”, “dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org”)); // Luke Dashjr vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bitcoinstats.com”, “seed.bitcoinstats.com”)); // Christian Decker vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“xf2.org”, “bitseed.xf2.org”)); // Jeff Garzik vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch”, “seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch”)); // JonasLike I get that there has to be some way to bootstrap the network and using trusted members of the development team is the simplest way to do it. But this seems absolutely amazingly centralized to me. Same as samuraiwallet.Like, not saying our devs are doing anything evil, but this isn’t even spread out, it’s mostly americans, it’s mostly blockstream developers, it’s mostly just websites hosted regular old ways on regular old web hosts that could be hacked as much as anything, all kinds of groups could seize this if they wanted.Like blockstream could declare that XT nodes were an attack on the network and never ever present those to anyone. Making it very hard for them to gain a place on the network.A hacker could connect a newly connected node to 8 of their own nodes, totally cutting them from the real block chain and forcing them to accept whatever fake blockchain they generated.LukeJr could make sure new nodes never connected to satoshi dice since he’s been trying to filter satoshi dice for years.A few governments could team up and say “hey you guys, we are going to subpoena your logs, we know wikileaks IP address, we want to see if he was connecting to the bitcoin network on march 15th” or whatever.Like it seems like exactly the same sort of insecure and centralized as samruaiwallet.

reddit.com
How come "classic" uses the same alert keys/DNS seeds as core?

The list of alert key holders is: “ Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen and theymos."The list of DNS seeds is:vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.sipa.be”, “seed.bitcoin.sipa.be”)); // Pieter Wuille vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bluematt.me”, “dnsseed.bluematt.me”)); // Matt Corallo vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“dashjr.org”, “dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org”)); // Luke Dashjr vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bitcoinstats.com”, “seed.bitcoinstats.com”)); // Christian Decker vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“xf2.org”, “bitseed.xf2.org”)); // Jeff Garzik vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData(“bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch”, “seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch”)); // Jonas SchnelliBoth of those seem to tie bitcoin to a certain set of developers. Like if an alert was needed to be broadcast would core need to be called on the phone and require we politely ask them to do it? If a new node wants to join the network does it require that we ask lukejr for permission 1/6th of the time?If a new dev team is taking over is it safe to rely on the centralized parts that centralize to the old team?

reddit.com
Forget the 5 miners that control 85% of the hashpower. Meet the 3 people who control which miners a Core node sees.

According to this post, when a Core node starts, it finds other nodes by contacting 3 hard-wired nodes: “bitcoin.petertodd.org”, “bluematt.me”, and “bitcoin.schildbach.de”.Is this true?If so, it is the strangest definition of a “distributed decentralized trustless protocol” that I’ve ever seen.

reddit.com
Miners transfer blocks through bluematt's "relay network" and use the p2p as a backup, large wallets submit directly to miners. Are we headed to a future that the p2p network is a philosophically important but largely unused legacy feature of bitcoin.

Miners communicate blocks through a series of centralized servers called the “relay network” written by blue matt and currently just not maintained by anyone: http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/As far as I know most major wallets/exchanges/etc also connect directly to the miners to submit transactions. Either on network by just making sure the miner’s nodes are neighboring nodes or by simply sending out of channel messages containing lists of transactions which most mining pools allow.In general decentralization is amazing for a lot of things but speed is always won by a more direct path and just communicating with the miners directly will always be faster than a p2p random walk through a number of nodes.Is there any reason for this to ever change? Is the future of bitcoin just basically going to be that the p2p network still exists and philosophically needs to exist as a backup IN CASE something goes wrong with censorship, but in practice is rarely used?Is that basically how it is now?