Bitcoin Forum

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

There is no decision or plan about making a PoW algo change. He is simply saying that it is possible to change the algo and that code to do so exists (e.g. altcoins and luke-jr). Luke-Jr made a pull request to Bitcoin Classic saying that they should change the algo. I'm fairly certain that he was trolling with that request and was not actually being serious about it.

That doesn't sound like trolling to me ... but maybe I'm wrong?

It means that it is possible, and that code exists in order to do so. It doesn't mean that it will happen, it just means that it can happen.

Luke-jr did the trolling on github (https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6). The person who was commenting on reddit was nullc which is Greg Maxwell, not Luke-Jr.

Honestly, I see it as a pretty big deal IMO.  The fact of the matter is, is that the community is continually dividing and devs can't pick a road to go down.  Honestly, it would be nice for all the devs to come on the forum for like a week or two to do a AMA or just take questions and honestly listen to people whether they are big time miners or just regular people who use Bitcoin.  If we all sit down and lay out the pros and cons together I think we can start getting toward a consensus. 

The reason why this will never happen though is because devs like to think themselves as people who can out think anyone, and opinions from people on here or anywhere else (even the other devs) don't matter, because their opinion or philosophy of how bitcoin should work is right no matter what in their eyes...

+21m

"The mother of all hard forks!"

Is my understanding of this correct: The aim would be to change to a different proof of work at the same time as classics hard fork. This would mean there would be a cleaner separation with two separate coins and two separate blockchains. I.e. transactions on one chain would not be valid on the other chain.

If that is correct then I think this is a good idea (if classic supporters insist on hard-fork).

One problem is that SPV clients would not be able to distinguish the difference right?

I wouldn't be surprised if (under that scenario) Core continues, Classic fails after weeks/months, but then more waves of infiltration attempts of Core begin afresh. At that point, anyone can give up pretending this isn't one huge campaign to wrest control of the code.

Bitcoin's value is basically decided by its mining cost, if you change to another POW, you have to rebuild the difficulty and mining cost in that hash network before the coin on that chain would have any significant value. But as long as the original POW network is strong, few would be interested in another POW coin

A forked coin might be possible to maintain its value without corresponding hash power for a while due to demand from users. But that will be short lived, once difficulty adjust down, people will quickly realize that they can mine coin instead of buy, so they mine and immediately sell for a huge profit, until the price were dragged down to mining cost, which is almost zero at the beginning of a new POW algo adoption

Exclude ASIC =  Dead bitcoin
bitcoin price is decided by mining cost and demand,taking this action will make bitcoin dead like other altcoins

Please stop talking nonsense and panicking. As you know anyone is free to make a proposal. There is no viable scenario in which this gains consensus in Bitcoin. In other words,
Nothing.

Laughable? This would be a very big deal, however it can't gain consensus.

This is analogous to a negotiation... where you [gmax] place a loaded pistol on the table facing the other participants [miners] before you ask them for an answer. Reeks of desperation.

This is going to be essential  at some point and probably sooner than later.

Surely Bitcoin value is determined by scarcity, and demand. Mining is just one factor affecting scarcity. It could be that an increase in the number of people (like me) who see Bitcoin as a long term investment will be more significant. In the current economic turmoil, you need to have a mix of investments - gold, Bitcoin, cash and strategic metals are all good, bank deposits, pension funds, most equities, and property are all vulnerable. Demand is influenced by ease of use, confidence and investment opinion. The increasing number of support applications will increase demand and improve usability. Allowing Bitcoin transactions to be revered will reduce confidence and thus demand. With regards to mining, transaction confirmation speeds amy become more important than adding a few more coins to the pool.

Please remember that I am new to Bitcoin, so I still do not have a complete understanding of the technology, but I may still have some of the opinions of the inexperienced.

That would be a very bad decision... They would undermine everybody who has built the fundementals of bitcoin.

Also, a change of algorithm for bitcoin, would just result in asics for the new algorithm and potentially unfair advantages to good programmers who can code FPGAs in the meantime.

seems luke Jr was trolling to cause debate,

but if it strangely did get implemented.. id give it 2 months before china created SHA3 based asic chips..
so i see no point in changing the algo in such a dramatic risk to security(difficulty dump), just for a 2 month gap of GPU farm mining before the ASIC race relaunched again

yes sure, and you think that almost 1 exa of hash will be pro this change, it's basically asking them to lose all their future profit with this change, for nothing because asic can be built for every new algo

so it's even utterly pointless to do

yes, it will never be like that. No miners will agree with this extreme changes. i
It will kill bitcoin. I cannot imagin the consequence.

You are missing the entire point.

Changing the PoW would be necessary to keep 1MB CoreCoin working in the event that a hashing majority decided to hardfork to 2MB blocks in Bitcoin. Each side would be calling the other an altcoin... and this change is the only way to keep the minority chain functioning and protected from attack by the ASIC hashing majority.

i think you did not grasp the part where it say that there is no asic proof, the new algo if profitable, it will bring again another asic competition in no time

and anyway the network weould be very small again with the same value as now? i dobut it, there is a reason why every altcoin out there are worthless

the value needs to be backed by something, in the case of bitcoin is done by a strong mining activity

if wont bankrupt ASIC companies.. it will start a new wave of profits as noobs will think they finally get a chance to place the ASIC race second time around..
so give it 2 months to develop a ASIC with SHA3 and within 3 months the race is over and farms are back in power..

but thats all hypothetical as going to SHA3 wont benefit for any reason for long.. its just drama with no long term benefit

I have same opinion!
Asic machines now brings new life to bitcoin ,
they constantly improving stability of network and BTC price increase with difficulty jumping.

If asic gonna excluded , price will free fall 50 % if we are lucky.
Network will not be so powerful as it is now!
My fear ? That could brings us nightmare of hacking and bruteforce from all those free machines.

the only reason that people cry for SHA3, is mainly due to racism.. pure and simple, once you peel away the reasons and get to the root of it
and those that are crying loudest, hate that china make equipment for $200 and sell it for $2000 to everyone else .. (secretly making multiple rigs with the profits you hand them) and pricing everyone else out of making ROI

bt a change to the algo, wont put china out of business.. so it wont help the racism...

oh and by the way 30% of hashrate is now in iceland.. and its going to increase.. so relax, china is not worth being racist about

Lol, what about people that are racist towards Icelanders? Is that not valid racism, or is your definition of racism, well, a bit racist?

I mean, I've got no qualms with people on the basis of ethnicity, and yet using SHA-3, as a way of reminding ASIC miners who's in charge, is a good idea. What kind of racist does that make me, lol

risking bitcoin security (dropping difficulty), and giving the little people false hopes of billionaire lifestyles for the price of a gpu. and the pretense that it would hurt the chinese... all for.. 2 months.. just doesnt hold enough weight for it to actually be worth doing

basically its not effective or teaching a lesson..
think about it. china would love a reason to make a new product.. people wold have to rebuy from scratch all over again. they would love it..

oh and racism doesnt have to be about an all or nothing mindset.. some racists can just hate one culture, but can be ok or love many other cultures.. or vice versa, so some racists can be ok with icelanders, while hating on others..

So, what happens to the accumulated difficulty invested in the blockchain by all the SHA-2 ASICs? That just disappears along with the hashrate that those ASICs conferred? Nope.

You're speaking as if only the present hashrate is protecting the chain at any given moment, whereas the cumulative hashing up to that point in time is what's really keeping the chain secure. All the previous heavy hashing is still there (and still will be if SHA-3 were implemented), still recorded in the blockchain.

So it would be effective. Think about it (although possibly think some more before you decide to post about it again).


So, using your bizarre logic, why is Bitcoin not a racist plot by the Chinese against the rest of the world? They're holding all the infrastructure cards, and they're acting as if they know it. So where's your identification of racism gone, Franky? Doesn't seem to make sense that way round, does it?

Labelling whole categories of people as having a single mindset is the mistake that actual racists make, and you're doing that in respect of those who say "let's go to SHA-3". Which is strange, seeing as you indicate that you simultaneously know that (racism) is not what's motivating the call to change. Makes you look a little muddled again, Franky.

It just shows how some devs are egocentric and bad behaving people, so giving them complete power to decide Bitcoin future is biggest mistake ever. Lets face it, monopoly hardly leads to customer satisfaction.

The Big Red Button.  The nuclear option.

Core's Doomsday Weapon.


Tooministas must cease their aggressive brinksmanship, or the hard fork missile crisis may get ugly.

I sleep soundly at night, knowing Bitcoin is supremely well-protected from catastrophic consensus failure.   8)

firstly.. read the sha3 proposal.. it would knock the difficulty down to allow solo mining.. meaning difficulty would be low and new blocks made using with sha3 would be weaker..

i never said or insinuated that it would magically make sha2 prehashed blocks weak..
i do love how you bandcamp fanboys love to discredit people by misinterpreted and then meander what has been said..

again
SHA3 blocks, that are solved by GPU.. will be WEAK and a SECURITY RISK



the chinese can be racist against the rest of the world.. but i dont see china crying that the rest of the world is.. whatever shill propaganda story is the latest drama to cry about
you muddled, but nice diversion. here have a gold star * and to quash your trolling.. and bring the debate back on topic..i will (sarcasm) call you god, pray at your knee's devote my life to stroking your ego.. whatever it takes to make you stop discrediting people by trolling.. and to ask you this..

talking about SHA3, not me.. what are you personal thoughts of sha3. what motivates you towards wanting it or demotivates you from wanting it..
its all theory after all and wont happen so there no risk in just being hypothetically honest about your sha3 opinion about the impact it could make

Just to make a point, I'll mention that I own a couple of gold coins over 100 years old. You know what?
They still work.

On the other hand, my bitcoind.0.8.6.1 not so much. And yes, I have another machine with 0.11 on it
just to prove I still have access to the network.

It's not just the bitcoin devs - other software that bitcoind depends on has security fixes and updates,
so the project is running across quicksand, to make an analogy.

I'd rather changes happened more slowly, and preferably via an altcoin, than via a process akin to
open warefare. YMMV.

No Franky, everyone will be using GPUs to mine, and so the playing field will be level. Absolute hashrate makes no difference in a world where the maximum possible rate has been brought down for everyone across the board.



It's no good getting all the details wrong the whole time and blaming it on my ego, the real problem appears to be that your own ego seems a little too fragile. I suggest you work on that also, because you're quite a likable character otherwise.

https://i.imgur.com/jC6JrhR.jpg

"And remember, if you get another attack of egotism, go straight back to the hospital immediately"

GPU solo mining on SHA3 is not a fixed permenant solution.. it will just be short term
people will pool their attempts
people will make sha3 asics..

meaning its just temporary before the hashing marathon begins again

and while the race heats up the power struggle and chances of 51%'s will happen again and again.

dont think for one second that everyone will be happily mining with just 1 GPU per user and the world is a permanent utopian dream of solo mining.. as it wont stay solo mining for long

Right, so are you just saying anything you can dream up that attacks the idea of ditching SHA-2, because you've abandoned 2 arguments already. I can refute your latest change of position if you like, but you're trying to start about 5 different arguments in the above post, do you consider addressing your points to be a valuable use of time?

love your waffle that just says people are wrong.. so lets see you add some substance..

so, tell me lord, god and saviour

1. i say GPU solo mining on SHA3 is not a fixed permenant solution.. .. so..
in the uptopia that solo mining happens in 2017 and some magic prevents anything but solo mining for the next 100 years
why is sha3 a permanent solution that can never be multiplied. (multi GPU on one board) or multple motherboards in one persons house..
to corroborate your view that everyone will be on a level playing field..
please be specific as different GPU's have different specifications. and motherboards can hold more than one GPU. so explain how people will always be on a level playing field..
point one is just about GPU mining.. we can get to ASIC mining in the points below

2. i say it will just be short term.. because
satoshi in january 2009 thought CPU will rule the roost, but it wasnt until later in the year that some bright spark said 'how about GPU' which started the hash power race..
so what stops someone coming up with a solution thats not foreseen today to get around GPU mining, which makes FPGA or ASIC do the work more efficiently

3. i say people will pool their attempts.. because
there is many ways to do it. whats going to stop people..

4. i say people will make sha3 asics.. because if a computer gpu that is not designed to SHA3 can do it.. a chip dedicated to SHA3 can do it faster.


i would actually like a respectful and proper answer.. no waffles that just turn out to say "your wrong" without substance.. and no trying to bring up other off topic stuff to pretend you want to discuss something different to avoid answering these direct questions.

have a nice day, my master, my saviour

Don't you this depends on the coin being a viable altcoin or the bitcoin for months / years?  How long did it take litecoin to do ASICs?  Three years?

Having bitcoin #2 viable economically enough to support ASICs might not be super realistic.  Or maybe it is when thermos declares bitcoin-classic as the alt for /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk while bitcoin-core plods on?