Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

Explanation of the voting choices (read at least the 2 posts linked, if not also the prior few pages of discussion):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18284854#msg18284854

There doesn't appear to be any other choice. The linked thread explains why.

Please read the linked information and vote based on being fully informed. I want to know what people really think after they've been informed as to what is really the choice we have.

We are being lied to about the reasons for the standoff.

[1714161313]

1714161313

[jonald_fyookball]

Explanation of the voting choices (read at least the 2 posts linked, if not also the prior few pages of discussion):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18284854#msg18284854

There doesn't appear to be any other choice. The linked thread explains why.

Please read the linked information and vote based on being fully informed. I want to know what people really think after they've been informed as to what is really the choice we have.

We are being lied to about the reasons for the standoff.

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

[iamnotback]

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

Read more at the linked thread and it is explained there. I just posted again at that other thread another summary post.

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

I proved/explained that Bitcoin Unlimited's whitepaper (written by @Peter R) is flawed. There is no equilibrium with unbounded block size and rather it is a weapon for the mining cartel to achieve full centralization. Several smart developers have peer reviewed my analysis.

But OTOH, Core also ostensibly has a sneaky agenda. <--- click and read

[Xester]

Explanation of the voting choices (read at least the 2 posts linked, if not also the prior few pages of discussion):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18284854#msg18284854

There doesn't appear to be any other choice. The linked thread explains why.

Please read the linked information and vote based on being fully informed. I want to know what people really think after they've been informed as to what is really the choice we have.

We are being lied to about the reasons for the standoff.

I would like to choose the second selection about bitcoin core. But before I will vote I wan to clarify the third choice and the fourth choice. I didnt get the meaning of it. Though I clearly understand the first and second option since it was obvious but I didnt see the relation of the third option and fourth option to number 1 and 2 items.

[iamnotback]

I would like to choose the second selection about bitcoin core. But before I will vote I wan to clarify the third choice and the fourth choice. I didnt get the meaning of it. Though I clearly understand the first and second option since it was obvious but I didnt see the relation of the third option and fourth option to number 1 and 2 items.

The reason an altcoin choice is there, is because once you understand that there is no possible decentralization solution for PoW, then you will realize that there is no choice for Bitcoin which isn't a cartel. So the only decentralization choice is to diversify into other tokens (i.e. voting by moving away from the token which is cartelized already). It sucks. I don't like it. But the facts are the facts.

The reason I refer to the Dash altcoin as being a cartel controlled by Evan, its instamine my-stake creator, is covered in great detail in the Altcoin Discussion forum. It is probably the most non-aggregate, cartelized coin in the Top 10 by phony marketcap. And Roger Ver who is behind BU recently aligned himself with the alleged Dash "scam". If you aren't familiar with the reason that Evan Inc allegedly controls 80+% of the money supply via the mastercode design, then you need to find the relevant discussion over there. I don't feel like digging for a link. Maybe someone else can post one. Again I write "alleged" so it is better you go read the very compelling facts of the case yourself. I'm motivated to point out that Roger Ver might have been pumping Dash as a short against Bitcoin because he knew the BU attack was coming with his full support. Then he spreads a lot of incorrect technological (FUD) argumentation in YouTube. In short, where there is honey, there are flies.

Roger Ver the former Bitcoin Jesus is now giving Bitcoin maximalists a religious experience on the value of altcoins. Some said he is now the Bitcoin AntiChrist. Lol.

I am not trying to discuss altcoins here, but the damn fight between BTU and BTC is practically forcing us to! Damn it!

[Xester]

I would like to choose the second selection about bitcoin core. But before I will vote I wan to clarify the third choice and the fourth choice. I didnt get the meaning of it. Though I clearly understand the first and second option since it was obvious but I didnt see the relation of the third option and fourth option to number 1 and 2 items.

The reason an altcoin choice is there, is because once you understand that there is no possible decentralization solution for PoW, then you will realize that there is no choice for Bitcoin which isn't a cartel. So the only decentralization choice is to diversify into other tokens (i.e. voting by moving away from the token which is cartelized already). It sucks. I don't like it. But the facts are the facts.

The reason I refer to the Dash altcoin as being a cartel controlled by Evan, its instamine my-stake creator, is covered in great detail in the Altcoin Discussion forum. It is probably the most non-aggregate, cartelized coin in the Top 10 by phony marketcap. And Roger Ver who is behind BU recently aligned himself with the alleged Dash "scam". If you aren't familiar with the reason that Evan Inc allegedly controls 80+% of the money supply via the mastercode design, then you need to find the relevant discussion over there. I don't feel like digging for a link. Maybe someone else can post one. Again I say "allleged" so it is better you go read the very compelling facts of the case yourself.

I am not trying to discuss altcoins here, but the damn fight between BTU and BTC is practically forcing us to! Damn it!

Thanks for explaining it and clarifying things to me, now I understand it. I guess there is no need to worry about the fight  between BTU and BTC since if we take a closer look and analyze the market BTC will still rule. BTU will be considered an altcoin and BTC will stay with the core developers. At the least the exchanges has explained things to make us not to worry about that anymore.

Just take for example ETH and Ethereum Classic, if you compare the price you will notice that the original coin will still prevail.

[manselr]

I don't see how Bitcoin Core is a a "bankster cartel".

In any case, Bitcoin Core has guaranteed my money stays safe for years, I can't trust any other altcoin or developer team.

Diversifying is a gamble. Altcoins pump and dump almost on a daily, might as well hold on BTC.

BTU is trash and not a real treat.

[mining1]

Obviously some of the reasons iamnotback considers dash a scam/cartel can be found here, read carefully and also the first page to have a better understanding http://www.nasdaq.com/article/op-ed-a-closer-look-at-the-origins-of-dash-part-2-cm761072

[mining1]

Xester, even though most people seem to support core, it doesn't mean it can win. What will happen if a 50-50 split in hashpower happens ? As i understand, BTC core will have more problems because BTC difficulty takes alot of time to adjust, and on top of that if a PUMP&DUMP war starts between core and BU it will only make it worse because of the 1MB blocks on btc core side. It will get stuck / unusable and more miners may switch over. Am i wrong ?

[iamnotback]

Just take for example ETH and Ethereum Classic, if you compare the price you will notice that the original coin will still prevail.

It isn't apparently quite that simple. There are significant potential risks (of chaos and thus a potentially cratering price)...

...in addition to the following, if Core feels threatened there is even talk about a PoW hash change, which would cause massive chaos (although Peter Todd who apparently proposed it, often makes outlandish proposals which aren't adopted).

Is that true that we have to move all our coins to a bitcoin core wallet so that in case of a fork to Bitcoin ulimited we have our coins also there? I heard that it is not good to leave the BTC at exchanges because they won't deposit these BTU 1:1 to BTC. Anyone knows more?

Here is my opinion. To get your BTU you must move or keep your bitcoin on the direct wallet which means you're using the software wallet. BTU will be running on the different chain or in this time I will be believing about the forked chain from the original bitcoin itself. So, you must wait until the forked chain will be fully activated. And the bitcoin unlimited dev will make an announcement or a method for you to get your Bitcoin unlimited.

Afaik, the problem is that without replay protection (which apparently BTU refuses to add), you would end up transferring your BTU when ever your transfer your BTC (and vice versa if BTC doesn't have replay protection). This was apparently a problem during the ETH/ETC split wherein some people tried to sell one or the other, but ended selling both as the transaction got relayed to both forks.

You can't even be sure an malevolent actor won't send your transaction from one peer network to the other.

I actually haven't studied this technical detail, so I might have an incorrect understanding.

Moreover, the exchanges listing BU as an alt coin, BU would lose the only thing bitcoin has going for it: its brand name.

However, if BU forks at 75%, they are pretty sure to survive for at least a while, the time people "vote in the market".  Moreover, the OTHER bitcoin, left with only 25% of hash rate, would be in serious problems: only a block every 40 minutes, and only hope to get it fixed 2 months from now, UNLESS they hardfork too and change difficulty "by hand".  Major cluster fuck for "normal bitcoin".

All normal bitcoin users would see their wallets come to a halt until they upgrade to the latest, hardforked version of "true bitcoin", with a hard fork !

Exchanges might reconsider their stance if the "true bitcoin" is a minority chain with a lot of technical difficulties and no transactions, and BU, majority chain, happily running, and call BU "bitcoin".

So BU would kill itself with a small majority, but would have serious chances to get the brand name and kill off the old chain if they had a LARGE majority.

[iamnotback]

I don't see how Bitcoin Core is a a "bankster cartel".

Refer to the links I had already provided.

Diversifying is a gamble. Altcoins pump and dump almost on a daily, might as well hold on BTC.

Everything is a gamble now. Thanks to the Bitcoin Jesus (alias Roger Ver) for the religious awakening. I had read that Jesus would return in 2019. I guess he cums first on cryptoporn.

In any case, Bitcoin Core has guaranteed my money stays safe for years, I can't trust any other altcoin or developer team.

...

BTU is trash...

That is also my stance, if you read the links I had provided.

BTU is ... not a real threat.

Disagree. It is a very real threat. We have now a Godzilla vs. King Kong battle between the miners who control the hashrate and want big blocks, and the banksters who control the code (they invested $70 million in Blockstream for a reason) and want tiny blocks so they can make us all transact on centralized hubs on Lightning Networks.

It is really that simple to understand. Bitcoin is clusterfucked.

(I'd been warning of that outcome since 2013)

[naughty1]

I still choose bitcoin core, maybe many people think I am nostalgic, but I just choose what I think it benefits all of us. BTU is slowly emerging, but it is not a good thing, it can cause a lot of upheaval, and this is really bad. All of them are a conflict, and that conflict should not happen. The greed of miners has created the BTU, they want to satisfy their will, an unlimited exploitation, but they do not think of its consequences, the most important is the value of bitcoin, it will be seriously affected.

[iamnotback]

I still choose bitcoin core...

Is it that simple?

I don't think the market will hold BU beyond an initial speculative pump before the big permadump just like ETC.

Then we are fucked with a 1MB blocksize forever, because afaik the mining cartel will never softfork adopt SegWit?

Either way, Bitcoin is looking more and more clusterfucked.

[Slark]

So there is no good option? Everything your presented is a bad option. We just have to chose lesser evil.
With SegWit dead on arrival, greedy miners afraid that it will strip them from transaction fees, our only real option is BU.
But if BU will be implemented nicely and seamlessly, community will follow and fork split will be avoided, is it really that bad?

[buwaytress]

I voted, fully confident I'd be voting for the most-chosen result. And I was wrong. I suppose one should congratulate you for making your point so well, if I can assume your arguments led to the swing in votes.

I am a new crypto user and do hold several alts, but only in negligible amounts. The bulk of my coin is still BTC and always will be, if for no other reason except that it is the most recognised.

[manselr]

if Core are evil banksters trying to centralize the network, why are they giving #1 top priority to guarantee that the nodes can be run by independent parties so even any broke guy living in his mom's basement can run his own node thanks to the conservative block size approach? That is diametrically opposed to wanting to control the network.

[cryptohunter]

I would like to choose the second selection about bitcoin core. But before I will vote I wan to clarify the third choice and the fourth choice. I didnt get the meaning of it. Though I clearly understand the first and second option since it was obvious but I didnt see the relation of the third option and fourth option to number 1 and 2 items.

The reason an altcoin choice is there, is because once you understand that there is no possible decentralization solution for PoW, then you will realize that there is no choice for Bitcoin which isn't a cartel. So the only decentralization choice is to diversify into other tokens (i.e. voting by moving away from the token which is cartelized already). It sucks. I don't like it. But the facts are the facts.

The reason I refer to the Dash altcoin as being a cartel controlled by Evan, its instamine my-stake creator, is covered in great detail in the Altcoin Discussion forum. It is probably the most non-aggregate, cartelized coin in the Top 10 by phony marketcap. And Roger Ver who is behind BU recently aligned himself with the alleged Dash "scam". If you aren't familiar with the reason that Evan Inc allegedly controls 80+% of the money supply via the mastercode design, then you need to find the relevant discussion over there. I don't feel like digging for a link. Maybe someone else can post one. Again I write "alleged" so it is better you go read the very compelling facts of the case yourself. I'm motivated to point out that Roger Ver might have been pumping Dash as a short against Bitcoin because he knew the BU attack was coming with his full support. Then he spreads a lot of incorrect technological (FUD) argumentation in YouTube. In short, where there is honey, there are flies.

Roger Ver the former Bitcoin Jesus is now giving Bitcoin maximalists a religious experience on the value of altcoins. Some said he is now the Bitcoin AntiChrist. Lol.

I am not trying to discuss altcoins here, but the damn fight between BTU and BTC is practically forcing us to! Damn it!

Someone should email roger this and also anything on the stephen dai debacle. Perhaps he really isn't doing any DD before aligning himself with these kind of projects. Don't get rogered.

Let's take a look at the first 5 h of Darkcoin (XCoin at that time)...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4589219#msg4589219
Edufield said (after failed launch) that he will wait the next day to launch DRK (XCoin at that time) it is 11 pm.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4591407#msg4591407
Edufield disregard windows wallet and daemon and hurry up his launch, presumably to not have windows miners on board.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4592827#msg4592827
Edufield say he added four nodes for the launch at 4 am (5 hours later, despite his promise to wait). The 4 nodes from Edufield are 3 amazons AWS + another unknown (whois IP). Launch started at 3h54 am.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4593601#msg4593601
Edufield said the github version was not updated, nobody could compile and only Edufield was able to mine until that time. It is 5.09 am and Edufield instamined alone 1153 block at 500 DRK + 60 block at reward 277 = 593120 DRK for him alone in about 1 hour.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4593987#msg4593987
No windows wallet confirmed at 5h47 am, despite a user attempt to make one avaiable, that Edufield dismissed quickly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4594096#msg4594096
Illodin, understand dev has instamined alot of coin.

This guy spends the next 2 years pretending there was no instamine at all lol

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4595573#msg4595573
From this list of nodes, at 8h34 am (4h40 after launch) there were 50 Amazon AWS node and 50 microsoft cloud computing instamining DRK (checked using IP whois service). This is 100/124 nodes using cloud computing to instamine DRK. We are at block 2870 and block reward is 500. From block 1153-1729 block reward is 277. After that it is 500 again hence 2294 block at 500 + 576 at 277 = 1306552 DRK (worth about 13M$ now WAY MORE NOW DO YOUR OWN CALC) were instamined in less than 5 hour by Edufield and coworkers using about 100 cloud mining instances. Edufield himself instamined in not even 5 h from 600K to 1169K DRK ((1306K-600K)*100/124 + 600K) depending how many of the 100 cloud mining instance were its own. All this while having purposefully set the difficult ridiculously low and block reward 100 times what it is now.


SCAM = unfair and dishonest scheme = dash


This latest defence is so strange. Where are the victims ? what are you talking about it is there in black and white.

1. everyone who was told it was a fair launch LIKE ALL THE OTHER LAUNCHES AT THE TIME. - then prevented from mining fairly = scammed
2. everyone who was told there would be much more opportunity to mine ( then that got slashed by 75%) - prevented from mining the coins that were then taken away = scammed.

here are your victims.

3. everyone buying now thinking dash can go somewhere not knowing the scam it is will forever hold it back = being scammed.


Every dasher on here trying to scam others into supporting your scam = scammers.

I will be updating my scammers thread to add all of your names to it.

Denying a scam after it is proven time and time again to you in black and white = scam enabler and defender = scammer.


Threads examining the evidence of the captive instamine and reduction of the minting to magnify such instamining ...PROOF OF SCAM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559028.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=995710.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999084.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.0

[dfd1]

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

There is no decentralization, same 20 computers solve all blocks for years and will continue like this forever.
Personally, I think SegWit is fine. One more party added to form consensus can improve decentralization in some weird way, banksters are fine.

[iamnotback]

So there is no good option? Everything your presented is a bad option. We just have to chose lesser evil.
With SegWit dead on arrival, greedy miners afraid that it will strip them from transaction fees, our only real option is BU.
But if BU will be implemented nicely and seamlessly, community will follow and fork split will be avoided, is it really that bad?

Core could hardfork also. And they will need to in order to adjust the difficulty level if BU hardforks 75% of the hashrate (40 minute block confirmations with only 1MB blocks would be intolerable).

I think ultimately we the token holders decide, but it is also possible BU could retaliate with difficulty thrashing attacks or perhaps even a 51% attack allowing no transactions at all on BTC (assuming BU has ~80+% of the hashrate). So then Core would need to retaliate by changing the PoW hash, which would cause the security to be vulnerable to botnets.

Godzilla vs. King Kong could create a swath of destruction while they are slugging it out.

Even Bitcoin is a gamble now. These opposing cartels are turning Bitcoin into an altcoin gamble. Do you trust BU's code when 3 serious bugs have occurred already?

Accepting BU is accepting Bitcoin = Visa, because we can't veto their (current and future) protocol changes with our wallets (because changing PoW hash is insecure) except by buying an altcoin. But that is already the case apparently if the mining cartel controls the supermajority of the hashrate.

When the miners stood for protocol immutability, then we had a leverage against Core. But now the miners are competing with Core to change the protocol taking control away from us, except we can still vote by selling Bitcoin and buying altcoins.

[jonald_fyookball]

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

Read more at the linked thread and it is explained there. I just posted again at that other thread another summary post.

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

I proved/explained that Bitcoin Unlimited's whitepaper (written by @Peter R) is flawed. There is no equilibrium with unbounded block size and rather it is a weapon for the mining cartel to achieve full centralization. Several smart developers have peer reviewed my analysis.

But OTOH, Core also ostensibly has a sneaky agenda. <--- click and read

I took a quick look at the other thread.  Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you think the orphaning risk vs propogation time should be linear.
Peter's graph on page 4 of https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf shows an asymptotic curve.  This is getting into some pretty heavy
math stuff, but if you think Peter is wrong on that specific calculation, maybe you can say why.