|
Title: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 05:53:39 PM In case you missed it ;) Hearn's Bitcoin XT is out. If it gets 75% of the hashing power, it will fork away from the Core chain. Part of their argument is that if this happens, everyone who is against XT will surrender and abandon the Core chain.
In June I posted a topic analyzing the possibilities for the Core chain to continue with a minority of the hashing power: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608) tldr: It's doable, but difficult. An interesting counteroffensive is "Not XT": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0) It's a client that pretends to be for the fork when it actually isn't. The idea is that when the fork happens, the XT fork will actually have less than 75% hashing power. Presumably Core would have enough hashing power to survive, and possibly even enough to outrun the XT chain. The "Not XT" fork gave me another idea for a counteroffensive. There could be a "Core Defense" fork. I'll call it Bitcoin CD, or just CD. This fork would not vote for XT, but would keep up with the votes for XT. If the 75% threshold is met, CD will respond by dropping the difficulty by a large amount (perhaps after or during the 2 week XT grace period). For example, there could be a one time difficulty drop so that the CD chain could easily continue with only 5% of the hashing power. If such a Bitcoin-CD fork were created and deployed, then it changes the dynamic of the votes for XT. Right now people are voting for XT under the assumption that it will kill the Core chain. If CD got even a very small percentage of mining support, it would make it clear that if XT reaches 75%, then there will definitely be at least two chains. Most people agree that if more than one chain survives it will be a bad situation. This might incentivize miners not to help XT reach 75% in the first place. (I don't think XT will reach 75% of hashing power anyway, but thought I'd share the Bitcoin-CD idea.) Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 19, 2015, 05:56:41 PM Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Jorge320 on August 19, 2015, 05:59:49 PM "WoW, Bitcoin Wars 2.0. Great Idea. Roll Eyes"
Hahaha, this just made my day... Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: jeffthebaker on August 19, 2015, 06:06:23 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network.
Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: DannyHamilton on August 19, 2015, 06:17:37 PM So, your solution to a forked blockchain is to fork it into three pieces instead of two?
XT will create a block that is bigger than CORE or CD will accept. CD will create a block that is lower difficulty than CORE or XT will accept CORE will create blocks that both XT and CD will accept as long as it can create the blocks faster than XT or CD. If it can't create blocks fast enough, then its blocks will simply be orphaned and ignored on the faster systems. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:20:11 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. The majority voted for Obama. I'm not generally a fan of the majority getting what they want. Though I tend to think they get what they deserve. There's no "wrong" blocksize (limit). There are tradeoffs. For people more concerned about preventing more centralization of bitcoin, small blocks are important. For people hoping for mass adoption, larger blocks are important. I don't consider myself as someone actively working to divide the community. The XT threat was an announcement that divorce papers might be served. They've now been served. I'm part of the response. The "community" is already divided. We want different things out of Bitcoin. I'm open to options that would make the divorce less messy. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Alley on August 19, 2015, 06:22:16 PM Stupid idea
Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: meono on August 19, 2015, 06:23:41 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. The majority voted for Obama. I'm not generally a fan of the majority getting what they want. Though I tend to think they get what they deserve. There's no "wrong" blocksize (limit). There are tradeoffs. For people more concerned about preventing more centralization of bitcoin, small blocks are important. For people hoping for mass adoption, larger blocks are important. I don't consider myself as someone actively working to divide the community. The XT threat was an announcement that divorce papers might be served. They've now been served. I'm part of the response. The "community" is already divided. We want different things out of Bitcoin. I'm open to options that would make the divorce less messy. No offense, but i think your brain can be much more useful for something else. Dont let emotion and FUD destroy you. I feel sad for you. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:24:57 PM So, your solution to a forked blockchain is to fork it into three pieces instead of two? XT will create a block that is bigger than CORE or CD will accept. CD will create a block that is lower difficulty than CORE or XT will accept CORE will create blocks that both XT and CD will accept as long as it can create the blocks faster than XT or CD. If it can't create blocks fast enough, then its blocks will simply be orphaned and ignored on the faster systems. Yes. And I know from reading your posts here that you technically understand what I'm suggesting. Your summary here is perfect. CD would be a strategic move to discourage people from voting for XT. The existence of CD would make it less likely that CORE would survive if it's a competition between XT, CD and CORE. However, CD would make it clear beforehand that XT will not be the only surviving chain. Since having more than once surviving chain is considered to be an unacceptable outcome by many people, this makes people less likely to vote for XT. The consequence? CORE survives. The intended outcome. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:26:21 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. The majority voted for Obama. I'm not generally a fan of the majority getting what they want. Though I tend to think they get what they deserve. There's no "wrong" blocksize (limit). There are tradeoffs. For people more concerned about preventing more centralization of bitcoin, small blocks are important. For people hoping for mass adoption, larger blocks are important. I don't consider myself as someone actively working to divide the community. The XT threat was an announcement that divorce papers might be served. They've now been served. I'm part of the response. The "community" is already divided. We want different things out of Bitcoin. I'm open to options that would make the divorce less messy. No offense, but i think your brain can be much more useful for something else. Dont let emotion and FUD destroy you. I feel sad for you. Sorry if my comment about Obama upset you. I know how much gay men fantasize about him. Bringing Obama up was really off topic, Adam Allcocks, and I apologize. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: meono on August 19, 2015, 06:28:07 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. The majority voted for Obama. I'm not generally a fan of the majority getting what they want. Though I tend to think they get what they deserve. There's no "wrong" blocksize (limit). There are tradeoffs. For people more concerned about preventing more centralization of bitcoin, small blocks are important. For people hoping for mass adoption, larger blocks are important. I don't consider myself as someone actively working to divide the community. The XT threat was an announcement that divorce papers might be served. They've now been served. I'm part of the response. The "community" is already divided. We want different things out of Bitcoin. I'm open to options that would make the divorce less messy. No offense, but i think your brain can be much more useful for something else. Dont let emotion and FUD destroy you. I feel sad for you. Sorry if my comment about Obama upset you. I know how much gay men fantasize about him. Bringing Obama up was really off topic, Adam Allcocks, and I apologize. OMG.... guys help me out...... I laughed so hard. Can someone put this nicely for him? I need a break from laughing Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: knight22 on August 19, 2015, 06:31:01 PM What about implementing Core in a way that better serves the market than XT? Sounds fair doesn't it?
Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: jeffthebaker on August 19, 2015, 06:34:55 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. The majority voted for Obama. I'm not generally a fan of the majority getting what they want. Though I tend to think they get what they deserve. There's no "wrong" blocksize (limit). There are tradeoffs. For people more concerned about preventing more centralization of bitcoin, small blocks are important. For people hoping for mass adoption, larger blocks are important. I don't consider myself as someone actively working to divide the community. The XT threat was an announcement that divorce papers might be served. They've now been served. I'm part of the response. The "community" is already divided. We want different things out of Bitcoin. I'm open to options that would make the divorce less messy. Bitcoin's strength and value are an outcome of the community. With a shrinking community, Bitcoin dies. I don't see why anyone who considers themselves a Bitcoiner would conciously work to shrink the community. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:36:39 PM What about implementing Core in a way that better serves the market than XT? Sounds fair doesn't it? I'm happy with Core and with its development process. Somewhat bigger blocks probably will be included in Core when the time is right. If people want more tps now, there are already alt coins that can serve that demand. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:39:05 PM Bitcoin's strength and value are an outcome of the community. With a shrinking community, Bitcoin dies. I don't see why anyone who considers themselves a Bitcoiner would conciously work to shrink the community. The community will shrink regardless of the outcome of this divorce. Now, those who support XT may be able to build an even bigger community, but it won't be with the people who wanted a decentralized permissionless cryptocurrency out of the control of governments. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: knight22 on August 19, 2015, 06:39:58 PM Comparing bitcoin with politic is flawed. There is nothing to enforce a president to not lie and achieve their promises. Bitcoin is code and will achieve rigorously what has been coded.
Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: not altcoin hitler on August 19, 2015, 06:46:32 PM In case you missed it ;) Hearn's Bitcoin XT is out. If it gets 75% of the hashing power, it will fork away from the Core chain. Part of their argument is that if this happens, everyone who is against XT will surrender and abandon the Core chain. In June I posted a topic analyzing the possibilities for the Core chain to continue with a minority of the hashing power: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608) tldr: It's doable, but difficult. An interesting counteroffensive is "Not XT": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0) It's a client that pretends to be for the fork when it actually isn't. The idea is that when the fork happens, the XT fork will actually have less than 75% hashing power. Presumably Core would have enough hashing power to survive, and possibly even enough to outrun the XT chain. The "Not XT" fork gave me another idea for a counteroffensive. There could be a "Core Defense" fork. I'll call it Bitcoin CD, or just CD. This fork would not vote for XT, but would keep up with the votes for XT. If the 75% threshold is met, CD will respond by dropping the difficulty by a large amount (perhaps after or during the 2 week XT grace period). For example, there could be a one time difficulty drop so that the CD chain could easily continue with only 5% of the hashing power. If such a Bitcoin-CD fork were created and deployed, then it changes the dynamic of the votes for XT. Right now people are voting for XT under the assumption that it will kill the Core chain. If CD got even a very small percentage of mining support, it would make it clear that if XT reaches 75%, then there will definitely be at least two chains. Most people agree that if more than one chain survives it will be a bad situation. This might incentivize miners not to help XT reach 75% in the first place. (I don't think XT will reach 75% of hashing power anyway, but thought I'd share the Bitcoin-CD idea.) This is great. I think core taking steps to protect itself is the way to go. Great work, guys. The idea of CD difficulty drop is also a good one. This is important work to make core defensible. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: knight22 on August 19, 2015, 06:49:09 PM In case you missed it ;) Hearn's Bitcoin XT is out. If it gets 75% of the hashing power, it will fork away from the Core chain. Part of their argument is that if this happens, everyone who is against XT will surrender and abandon the Core chain. In June I posted a topic analyzing the possibilities for the Core chain to continue with a minority of the hashing power: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1097608) tldr: It's doable, but difficult. An interesting counteroffensive is "Not XT": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0) It's a client that pretends to be for the fork when it actually isn't. The idea is that when the fork happens, the XT fork will actually have less than 75% hashing power. Presumably Core would have enough hashing power to survive, and possibly even enough to outrun the XT chain. The "Not XT" fork gave me another idea for a counteroffensive. There could be a "Core Defense" fork. I'll call it Bitcoin CD, or just CD. This fork would not vote for XT, but would keep up with the votes for XT. If the 75% threshold is met, CD will respond by dropping the difficulty by a large amount (perhaps after or during the 2 week XT grace period). For example, there could be a one time difficulty drop so that the CD chain could easily continue with only 5% of the hashing power. If such a Bitcoin-CD fork were created and deployed, then it changes the dynamic of the votes for XT. Right now people are voting for XT under the assumption that it will kill the Core chain. If CD got even a very small percentage of mining support, it would make it clear that if XT reaches 75%, then there will definitely be at least two chains. Most people agree that if more than one chain survives it will be a bad situation. This might incentivize miners not to help XT reach 75% in the first place. (I don't think XT will reach 75% of hashing power anyway, but thought I'd share the Bitcoin-CD idea.) This is great. I think core taking steps to protect itself is the way to go. Great work, guys. The idea of CD difficulty drop is also a good one. This is important work to make core defensible. I don't see why defend Core if Core better serves the needs of the market. Can you enlighten me? Someone? Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 06:56:32 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: knight22 on August 19, 2015, 07:05:18 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: meono on August 19, 2015, 07:16:24 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. Quote to add a note of another XT bashers. Go on. I'm compiling a data of all the XT Bashers, it help to show the community what drives them Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 07:18:53 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction. You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin. Quote from: Satoshi >You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography. http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html (http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html)Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. Satoshi Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Quantus on August 19, 2015, 07:22:47 PM The best defense is a good offense.
We should start compiling lists of targets susceptible to Ddos attacks like mining pools and exchanges. ... we could put a hit out on Gaven :P Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 19, 2015, 07:27:33 PM Tsk, tsk. No hits on anyone. This war will be fought with hashing power and game theory.
And maybe some ddos. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: knight22 on August 19, 2015, 07:30:36 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction. You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin. Quote from: Satoshi >You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography. http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html (http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html)Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. Satoshi I don’t think anyone here would support whitelisting or anything like that. Bitcoin itself is international so it should remain agnostic, fungible and permissionless. I’m also pretty sure most of the big players recognise that as well. If such a thing would happen, then we’ll have the ability to fork it again if the numbers are there. That’s pretty much what XT is demonstrating right now with the scalability issue. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: meono on August 19, 2015, 07:32:42 PM I don't see why defend Core if Someone? There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well. The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction. You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin. Quote from: Satoshi >You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography. http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html (http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html)Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. Satoshi I don’t think anyone here would support whitelisting or anything like that. Bitcoin itself is international so it should remain agnostic, fungible and permissionless. I’m also pretty sure most of the big players recognise that as well. If such a thing would happen, then we’ll have the ability to fork it again if the numbers are there. That’s pretty much what XT is demonstrating right now with the scalability issue. The funny thing is that has nothing to do with the "blacklist" code..... Some ppl are really twisted, no help for them. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: iCEBREAKER on August 19, 2015, 07:48:53 PM So, your solution to a forked blockchain is to fork it into three pieces instead of two? XT will create a block that is bigger than CORE or CD will accept. CD will create a block that is lower difficulty than CORE or XT will accept CORE will create blocks that both XT and CD will accept as long as it can create the blocks faster than XT or CD. If it can't create blocks fast enough, then its blocks will simply be orphaned and ignored on the faster systems. Yes. And I know from reading your posts here that you technically understand what I'm suggesting. Your summary here is perfect. CD would be a strategic move to discourage people from voting for XT. The existence of CD would make it less likely that CORE would survive if it's a competition between XT, CD and CORE. However, CD would make it clear beforehand that XT will not be the only surviving chain. Since having more than once surviving chain is considered to be an unacceptable outcome by many people, this makes people less likely to vote for XT. The consequence? CORE survives. The intended outcome. Well done. What do you think about a CoreDefence wallet, designed to make it easy to double spend XTcoins (should anyone be brave enough to accept them) while keeping Bitcoin safe? (Why should MPEX have all the fun shorting Gavincoins?) There could also be a CD pool, where anyone can donate to a fund which provides lower (perhaps negative) fees to miners. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: Quantus on August 19, 2015, 08:00:43 PM I think a large number of core supporters would compromise to the tune of a 2mb block size if they get some kind of guarantee black-listing and ip reporting is taken out of the code.
XT supporters need to understand Core supporters are stubborn fuckers who will never agree to 8mb blocks. Consensus is everything. We need a fee based system not a free system. If its free to use the system then its free to spam the system. May the Ddos be with you. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: desired_username on August 19, 2015, 08:04:26 PM Hey, spreading lies, fear mongering and censoring is not enough?
Pathetic. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: danielW on August 20, 2015, 04:01:52 AM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. Too be fair, trying to push a fork through with only 75% hash power (or less as Hearn suggested using checkpoints) is just as divisive. Bitcoin was designed so a majority cant enforce their rules on a minority. It should be 90-95 % at least. Gavins single pool argument was dishonest too. Miners can switch pools. Title: Re: A Core Defense Strategy Post by: iCEBREAKER on August 20, 2015, 09:40:24 PM Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network. Too be fair, trying to push a fork through with only 75% hash power (or less as Hearn suggested using checkpoints) is just as divisive. Bitcoin was designed so a majority cant enforce their rules on a minority. It should be 90-95 % at least. You are expecting too much understanding of How Bitcoin Works from the XT troll. Fairness is not a concept Gavinistas use, otherwise GavinCoin would have its own independent launch and genesis block instead of hijacking Bitcoin's. Mike "Final Call" Heam will even use checkpoints to get his way. Quote If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea. A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj) |
