Bitcoin Forum

The War is getting dirtier ever and ever. While yellow crypto media and venal writers here and there are announcing it over already, Bitmain is busy punishing communities who dare to resist.

After the shameful event of announcing z9 as Bitmain's latest ASIC crack against a PoW algorithm, two equihash based coins that happened to be the ones who officially had announced their intention to resist the ASIC crack by managing for a hard fork, Bitcoin Gold and Zencash, experienced a 50%+1 attack.

It is how it works in the 'real world' when it comes to money, we all know, but there is something else that we know too: Cryptocurrency is about changing this reality instead of giving it a hug.

I'm sure, devs in both camps will do what they should, and Bitmain's evil strategy will fail but here I'm not talking about alternate currencies, instead, I'm willing to discuss Bitcoin situation, being seized by a company like Bitmain, praying for its majesty to play fair, desperately.

This company is dreaming of taking over the whole crypto ecosystem and I think it should be even kicked out of Bitcoin.

Very opposite agendas in a ridiculous distribution of power and resources, they have everything and I'm on my own, I see but I have something they can't even dream of: a plan!

Firstly, the depth of emptiness of Bitmain's strategy should be understood. Taking over a decentralized system is an impossible mission. This company is deemed to failure the question is whether it goes down alone or pulls Bitcoin down with itself.

My plan:

I think eliminating ASICs is a very urgent necessity and it is absolutely feasible, both techically and socioeconomically. For coins that has not been overtaken by Bitmain (yet) it is more convenient, obviously, but in the case of infected ecosystems like Bitcoin, for which my plan is, it gets a bit more complicated. I'm thinking of 3 major projects:

1- Specific enhancements can be made to bitcoin mining protocol that discourage pool operations and help decentralized mining. I call it de-pool project.
Running such a fork would prevent Bitmain from using its Antpool leverage in the first place and brings back mining power to the actual ASIC owners.
The technical challenges involved are not that hard and I have some proposals for it in my turn.


2- A Dag based algorithm can be implemented with very acceptable resistance against ASIC attacks, despite what venal cryptographers and writers say. I call it de-ASIC project.
An enhanced version of Dagger Hashimoto can resist ASIC attempts very well. Bitmain's E3 is a misleading propaganda announcement, a joke and not a true ASIC crack.


2- A smart solution can be devised to let a smooth migration from ASIC to gpu mining within few epochs that can take place in like 2 years. It is ASIC Break project.
This project is based on a multi-algorithm, multi difficulty approach and smoothly will retire ASICs in a 2-3 year period.


Each of the projects needs a seperate thread to discuss but the whole picture deserves one as well.

You are welcome to discuss the feasibility of each project and share your ideas, but please, keep your 'ASIC is not that bad' shit out of this topic. Here I'm inviting people committed to ASIC resistance, not the ones who (being payed or not) write in favor of the enemy. Of course you can write what you want but it will be my right to call you a venal writer. This is how I think, "anybody who writes in favor of Bitmain, is payed by Bitmain" and you know what? I don't feel bad being such an enthusiast this one time.

Could you please explain how eliminating ASICS eliminates 51% attacks, I just don't get it from what I read. All cryptos which runs on GPU/CPU mining, will wanish from crypto space because of 51% attacks, because it's so damn easy to make those attacks when we have Nicehash.

More ideology over practicality, then?  Whatever ideas, schemes or plans you come up with, they won't be compatible with Bitcoin.  I suggest you go play in the altcoins subforum if you're that desperate to have your ASICectomy coin.  You're more of a threat to the security of the chain than any manufacturer could ever hope to be.  You'd happily sacrifice everything to vanquish your chosen foe, even if that meant putting the chain in danger.

DooMAD (to me): "Don't you try to tell people what's Bitcoin should or shouldn't be, let them decide!"

DooMAD (recently): "Bcash shills can't tell people what Bitcoin is, I proclaim that Bitcoin is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash!"


And today, DooMAD tells us what Bitcoin is (and isn't), again. Your #1 principle seems to be that everyone must adhere to your principles, even when your principles change to suit your argument. Frequently.

I'm sorry it's so difficult for you to follow, Carlton, but it hasn't changed.

If there is noticeable support for a proposed fork, someone had coded something and a reasonable number of people appear to be behind the idea, there's literally no choice but to let the market decide.  No devs are "in control" or "own" the entire network.  Any dev can submit code.  Everyone runs what they want.  That's how it always has worked, that's how it always will work.

After a fork has occurred, the minority chain doesn't get to steal the name from the majority.  That's just going to further confuse the uninitiated, who may find it complicated enough to climb what's already a fairly steep learning curve to begin with.  There's nothing stopping them from trying to steal the name, perhaps, but the majority are going to make their presence felt and inevitably deny them.

This doesn't fall into either of those categories.  If you're a lone wolf with an incompatible, barely conceived idea that goes completely against the permissionless ethos of Bitcoin, like kicking people off the network for example, then it's pretty obvious you need to go create your permissioned chain somewhere else.  But sure, if you want to set the precedent that we're suddenly okay with banning companies we might disagree with from Bitcoin, you go right ahead.  Why not add some blacklisting and a new supply limit while we're at it?    ::)

Any dev can submit code... except people with ideas you don't like, like this guy

Okay ::) Stay consistent :D

You first.  Unless aliashraf is a Core dev, you now have to accuse him of trying to steal Core's property by forking code that only belongs to Core and no one else.  Or has your stance changed now?   ::)

Be honest for once, would you actually support this idea?  Kicking a company off the network?  Actually, never mind.  What's the point in asking?  You're worse than a politician.  You never answer the question.  You probably don't even care and this is just you attempting to score a point after losing so many each time we cross paths.   :P

Kicking people off the network isn't how we do stuff here.  I don't think I'm a bad person for pointing that out.  I'd be surprised and more than a little disappointed if the community were okay with this so-called "plan".  I did suggest he make an altcoin.  If he wants to code this and find out for sure that it's a terrible idea, diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles we generally subscribe to here, he's more than welcome to.

Get used to thus I think pow will lose and pos will remain

2 merit for op since I like and support this topic

Next will be zcash

@LukeDashjr

PSA: if someone has a full >50% hashrate for your cryptocurrency, there is NO NUMBER of blocks where confirmation is safe. Once you get beyond 50%, you can reverse an unlimited number of blocks!

(What happened to BGold, CAN be done to BCH or maybe Bitcoin if Bitmain wants to...)

In Misericordae's whitepaper (to be released soon), this issue was analysed.  Yes indeed, there is a bitter war going on already about ASIC. Is it the best solution to BAN ASIC in the cryptocurrency ecosystem? From hardware engineering point of view, Bitmain succeeded on an innovation path that was not conceived to be possible some years back.  These ASIC machines  have other advanced applications apart from using them to mine cryptocurrency. Bitmain should be encouraged to focus more in further development of ASICs, like they have currently supported the creation of a new Algorithm that bridges cryptocurrency mining with Artificial Intelligence.  On the other hand, Bitmain should be discouraged from producing ASIC for specific algorithms without an initial active discussion with the developers.  Such an active collaboration between hardware manufacturers and software producers will be very positive for growth and use of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in general.

Is there a possibility of 51% attack on Bitcoin? Of course! This can be effectively carried out if desired either by the manufacturer of ASICs  like Bitmain or by mining farms. If Bitmain has integrated backdoors in the miners, it will easily conduct any form of attack on Bitcoin Blockchain, any form including 51%. The possibility of such a backdoor cannot be ruled out, intentional or unintentional, as today we are still unravelling backdoors/flaws in our personal computers. But how about mining farms? It is also highly possible that owners of mining farms could find companionship in an effort to conduct an attack on the network.

What are the ways forward?
First and foremost, bitterness in the young ecosystem is unhealthy for everyone.  Secondly, Politics, Regional, and National Interests must be removed from the blockchain ecosystem. You cannot rule out issues of Chinese and Western powers in this episode. Thirdly, both hardware and software developers must learn to have discussion, very transparently, and should ask the question about where we will be in the next ten years with the 'dirtiness' that is already creeping into the young ecosystem. Lastly, Bitmain has earned a reputation as an unhealthy competitor and a potential bad actor. However, all must see through the efforts of Bitmain to correct its past mistakes and they should be helped through more open communications and thought-through advice.

Bitmain sees it that they succeeded in an innovation and they definitely want to stay at the top among their manufacturing peers. As a manufacturer, Bitmain asks itself this question: "if we don't manufacture ASIC for this Algorithm, our competing peers will do it". If Blockchain developers understand this logic in the mind of Bitmain, then a transparent dialogue/agreement that makes both sides happy will be reached. Peace and Working together is so much needed in the baby blockchain ecosystem. There are much larger challenges that are yet to come.  DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE!

Solution is not to build ANTI-ASIC algorithm, but building ASIC algorithm and a coin that can support it or make it compatible with existing one (I am not supporting ASIC by the way).

Shitcoins with low hashrate are easily 51% attacked. So-called "ASIC-resistant" ones doubly so, since "ASIC-resistant" really means "botnet friendly". Don't pretend to be surprised.

Top cryptocurrencies must learn and invest in the security of their coin and protect the community from such attacks.

Now this guy is a fan of permissionless systems! Congrats dude, you are making progress ... so, is Bitcoin a permissionless network right now? Sure? You mean people can freely choose to take a crucial role like mining blocks without buying hardware (acquiring permission) from Btmain?
 
We have to admit, Bitcoin is no longer a permissionless system neither an alternate monetary system, it is just a treasure, an asset kept safe by Bitmain hardware and AntPool. This is it! Be honest and face the truth!

I'm sick of this 'Bitcoin is Bitcoin' discourse, I'm sick of the artificial block size debate.

I think these guys, Core devs have been fooled by Bitmain to forget about the most urgent and important event ever, ASIC crack against SHA256, and the single huge mistake of Satoshi, choosing a PoW algorithm with such a small memory footprint.

Bitmain was building its empire when they were fooling around with SW, now they have to reconsider everything with a sense of regret, imo.

And guys like you @Doomad, you act like any venal writer, you write for Bitmain, you are concerned about Bitmain not to be banned, actually you are accusing me of trying to ban Bitmain!

This is hypocrisy in a naive form. Asking for resistance against a company that has monopolized the entire ecosystem by cracking its consensus algorithm, is not a call for banning a company.

I have suggested a plan to set bitcoin free from ASIC, it is practical and deserves to be discussed, you are in love with Bitmain and enjoy current situation Doomad? Just don't participate in this thread. Wait for the result and when it comes to vote for change, vote against it.

I just have to say thank you for the comment and send some merits, it was so freshening, your reply.

Looking forward for more 'dialogue' with you  :)

So, you think Satoshi was a fool and the crackers in Bitmain who cracked SHA256 with their ASIC saved bitcoin from botnets?

Of course, low hashrate networks are subject to 51% attack but theoretically it is mitigated by the attack cost/benefits analysis. When a network is suspected to be in such a danger, exchanges, wallets have to increase their confirmation numbers requirements for that network (proportional to the value of the transaction, I suggest).

Satoshi was aware of this threat and didn't hesitated to launch the white paper and the bitcoin blockchain subsequently. His words:

See? Acquiring 'more CPU power' was a known problem from the first beginning. Not a big deal, tho  ;)

The latest 51% attacks on Zencash and Bitcoin Gold belong to a new category of attacks, though, Bitmain is punishing the resistance against its new miner Z9, those coins are preparing to fork against the evil.  ;)

Bitcoin Core devs should be accounted, while they were playing with artificial toys like the foolish block size debate, and their 'brilliant' alternative, Segregated Witness (a junior hacker way of solving problems), Bitmain was accumulating enough resources to become what it is now, a threat to everything and everyone!

This is the danger of having a mining algorithm that uses GPUs because they can be used to mine different cryptocoins. The chains that have low hashrate will be open to attack.

Bitcoin Gold and Zencash are Equihash coins. I predict the next attack will be on Bitcoin Private which also use Equihash.

I agree ASIC resistance is very important and promoting decentralized and even individual mining operations is totally in line with the liberating spirit of Crypto Currencies.

Having said that, no project should expect to be taken seriously if they haven't figured out a way to defend themselves definitively from a 51 % attack.

Such a hacking risk has been known since the first inception of crypto currencies.

@Vispilio. ASICs are really important because they add to the game theory mechanics. Bitmain will not be stupid to attack bitcoin because it might make their ASIC miners worthless.

Also there are other ASIC manufacturers that would try to protect their interests by adding more hash power in case of an attack on bitcoin. The real danger is really on the minority chain, bitcoin cash.

I'm not against any kind of innovation and even saying weird things like this, claiming that ASICs are important and the manufacturer will take care of the network because of game theory, ... actually this is a very common discourse in bitcoin community, but there IS a serious problem with this kind of reasoning: It lacks an established paper work and theory base.

Cryptocurrency, begun with Satoshi's white paper has a very solid framework: Are you speaking of a decentralized, public, permissionless, trustless cash transfer protocol, implemented in a network that is maintained collaboratively again in a decentralized, permissionless, public, trustless fashion?

If the answer is YES, congratulations you passed, welcome to crypto world, otherwise you have two choices: improve and try again or establish a new theoretical framework for a new technology (say, ASIC currency, whatever).

My problem with people like you and others who dare come here and cover the mess with ASICs is not their ideas, it is about their moralities, their lack of courage to take the responsibility and 'fork' theoretically from crypto currency discourse.

This is hypocrisy, imo. The network you are talking about is neither permissionless nor trustless and is highly centralized.

Game theory won't help here, you can not say things like that, it is like saying monarchs won't do anything bad because they are committed to their common interests, according to game theory!

Guys like you remind me of my mom  ;D
She always asks me to be humble and tolerant with the government.
She argues like this : Don't they prefer to rule over a better country or aren't they that clever to understand their best interests?

Thanks god, she is not a mathematician like you and has not a clue about game theory(!) otherwise she would have convinced me not to do anything about my country's ridiculously corrupted political situation.

Virtually, Bitcoin Network is run by ASICs. CPU, GPU, and FPGA mining are in the minority, perhaps not even up to 15% of the mining network with the current hashing difficulty. These ASICs that are running the Bitcoin Network are predominantly from one manufacturer, BITMAIN.  The topmost mining pools have ties to the same manufacturer BITMAIN. There is no guarantee whatsoever that a company controlling a blockchain network cannot undermine the global interest of its network users. There had been an issue of discovered backdoor in those ASICs, even though BITMAIN tried to remedy the matter. There is no game theory mechanics because there is only one player. This is why blockchain developers are highly concerned and beginning to enforce bans on ASICs, e.g. Monero. Dialogue and transparency will definitely help. Developers have sympathizers and manufacturers like Bitmain have sympathizers too.  The attack on Zencash and Bitcoin Gold may have been orchestrated by BITMAIN network itself (may or may not be sanctioned by the executives), sympathizers of BITMAIN or could be a 'false flag' attack by BITMAIN competitors in manufacturing. Nothing is ruled out. Dialogue is really the best approach.

@aliashraf. That is not what I said. I never said ASICs are important. What I was saying is GPUs and ASICs that can be mined other coins are dangerous to the minority chains that uses the same mining algorithm.

Examples are Zcash and Bitcoin Gold, Zencash and Bitcoin Private. Zcash has the biggest hashrate then therefore BTG, ZEN, the minority chains, were attacked. Next I predict it will be Bitcoin Private.

The question now would be will the ASIC miners attack Zcash?. The answer would clearly be No because it would make their ASICs worthless.

I was not talking about any ideology. I was making an opinion on what we are witnessing today.

@MISERICORDAE PROJECT. I am not an ASIC sympathizer. Are you crazy?

Also, I reckon game theory still applies because there are multiple active miners, not only one. Although you are correct that Bitmain is the main player in producing ASICs, they are not the only one. Miners can go to another manufacturer if Bitmain acts against the miners best interests.

The discussion is not about Bitmain's best interests to keep crypto mining functioning in an orderly fashion or its mutually profitable competition with other miners;

that's why a crude analogy to Game Theory falls short here. To prevent disgruntled external actors like states and banks, namely the controllers of fiat power in the

world from disrupting the Crypto Revolution, mining activities and transactions have to remain decentralized and dynamic, making them Anti Fragile against state

legislation or even military intervention...

Yes game theory.

You were not specifically referred to as a Bitmain's ASIC sympathizer, and now it's really good that you are helping with clarity on your viewpoint.



It will be good if you can provide a volume estimate of ASICs in circulation today, with the % percentage from Bitmain compared to other ASIC manufacturers, and in relationship to the most notable Bitcoin SHA256...This will help in better understanding of who is in control, and how many players are actually in the game.

Do you have an estimate of how many Miners that went to another manufacturer when it was discovered that Bitmain has created a 'backdoor' for remote operations in S9 ASIC miners without knowledge of the end-users? What was the volume of Bitmain's sales after the problem was highlighted by the developers community? You can probably shed more light on how you arrived at the conclusion  that "Miners can go to another manufacturer if Bitmain acts against the miners best interests." Why are miners still stuck with Bitmain till now?

The statistics today shows topmost mining pools, Antpool (ca. 15 %), BTC.com (ca. 30%) and ViaBTC (ca. 10%), including other minority pools with 5-7%, all have direct and/or indirect ties to the same ASIC manufacturer Bitmain. Add up the total percentages.

How do we really define the game theory between multiple end-user miners, manufacturer of their mining machines and the controller of the pools through which they mine?

well as far as brick walls go, at least you are cute :), if that picture of you is genuine.

@Vispilio. Because Bitmain's self interests and its game theory mechanics do matter for bitcoin itself, the other miners and the community.

Your tirade against ASIC is what does not matter. You can say everything you want but there is nothing stopping a hardware manufacturer from developing ASICs on any proof of work algorithm.

@ bbc.reporter This is an important and valid statement of fact. Bitmain's revenue has skyrocketed over the last couple of years after they started shipping out ASICs - very lucrative and newly found BILLIONS of Dollars in Revenue. Your point brings us back to @Aliashraf's proposal to discuss way forward in engaging Bitmain to be a 'good player' in the blockchain ecosystem.  

@Aliashraf proposed the following:

From MISERICORDAE's perspective, proposal number 1 and 3 are in alignment with its ongoing project albeit the fact that Misericordae prefers to create a  balance between ASICs and other computing devices like FPGA, GPU & CPU through multi nonlinear difficulty for multiple algorithms and a protocol for excess hashrate redistribution. For proposal number 2, Misericordae is neutral to algorithms developed specifically to be resistant against ASICs. A billion dollar revenue enterprise like Bitmain can invest a few millions to overt such an ASIC-resistant algorithm if it accessed a high market revenue from it.

Misericordae proposes engagement and dialogue between blockchain developers community and ASIC manufacturers like Bitmain. A strong message was sent to Bitmain through the forking of Monero cryptonight that hit at the overall potential revenue, and now there seems to be a reprisal (a message response) through the attack on zencash and bitgold that nurtured interests to fork, which will be another hit at manufacturer's revenue. Tit-for-tat is unhealthy for the young ecosystem. Can there be dialogue?

@bbc.reporter & @Vispilio, @forum members, which of the @alishraf's proposal do you favor ? Is there even a possibility for dialogue between blockchain developers and ASIC manufacturers?


 

Who will develop it him or you? Would that proposal be accepted by bitcoin's developers and the community? You all talk like it was very easy or you think that are so smart. But in truth you cannot look more stupid than you are now.

So, are we supposing Bitmain has full control over every hardware it sells?  I don't think that would be the case.
Another more probable case can be bitcoin pools unite to do it without the consent of the miners. The large Chinese pools combined do make 51%.
But again why would they kill their golden hen?

So are you, it seems.  You've progressed to the Altcoins forum where your idea can reach its target audience.  Congrats!   ;)

It is always about WE, not about 'me, you or him'. Of course, nothing is easy. You wake up in the morning and you walk. It is so easy you think but some people wake up and can not walk, and some people can not even wake up. Yet under the different conditions of difficulty, people learn to make efforts!  Therefore, the proposal by @aliashraf is on the table for interested parties to discuss towards a development. If the proposal match your interest, in any way no matter how little, do not be hesitant to make a contribution towards a development.

FYI, about three months ago there was an interaction between Bitmain and Misericordae associate on this kind of discussion. Bitmain's response was surprisingly quite open and quite positive. Addressing this kind of serious issues highlighted here in a balanced way is interesting to any responsible party. That's why we are of the view that DIALOGUE can be given chance. Now, @aliashraf' s proposal, particularly no.1 and no. 3 as said in the last post are quite fitting to Misericordae project interest. Which of the three are fitting to your interest?

 
Who actually are the Bitcoin developers and community? Your contribution to the proposal towards resolving the issues is more IMPORTANT than the fear of whether Bitcoin developers and community will accept the proposal.  

From hardware technology point of view, any 'rogue' micro or nano controller component can be embedded during Foundry and Processing of a hardware if a manufacturer chose to. When this is not the case, access to factory embedded codes (firmware)  for control operations may be gained, modified and used by a rogue  staff of a company or by the company itself. An authority can force a manufacturer to cooperate with installation of such embedded controller codes (firmware). So, the question of whether we are supposing Bitmain has full control over every hardware it sells can only be answered by 'inspectors' that can be assigned to every batch of Bitmain's manufacturing process. Read more here about already discovered access and control backdoor in Bitmain's mining products https://www.antbleed.com (https://www.antbleed.com), https://www.ccn.com/jihan-wu-confirms-claims-of-a-backdoor-in-bitmain-apologizes-says-its-a-bug/ (https://www.ccn.com/jihan-wu-confirms-claims-of-a-backdoor-in-bitmain-apologizes-says-its-a-bug/), https://www.coindesk.com/antbleed-bitcoins-newest-new-controversy-explained/ (https://www.coindesk.com/antbleed-bitcoins-newest-new-controversy-explained/), etc.



True. Pools can just do it without consent of miners.


The taxes that you pay on your business, house, healthcare, etc go to the government, right? We can say as well that the taxes are a golden hen, right? But why are there tons of scandals from the people elected to use the taxes for all our interests? Why are they killing the golden hen?

Actually these coins suffered  51% attack within close period of time: bitcoin gold, monacoin, zencash, and verge (at least twice).  And most recently, Litecash suffered same attack https://www.ccn.com/litecoin-cash-latest-small-cap-altcoin-to-suffer-51-percent-attack/ (https://www.ccn.com/litecoin-cash-latest-small-cap-altcoin-to-suffer-51-percent-attack/).

MISERICORDAE PROJECT you have some good ideas, there are many algorithms that have dynamic elements to facilitate ASIC resistance, it can be an ongoing low intensity competition between ASIC producers and developers to keep centralization and monopolies in check and make it prohibitively costly for ASIC producers to dominate mining actvity.

As for bbcreporter, she is a clueless laywoman who doesn't even understand you are talking about altcoin mining and dagger hashimoto algo in particular, so feel free to ignore her prepubescent tantrums...