Bitcoin Forum

So while enjoying my morning coffee I was enlightened as to more of the upper echelon of BTC adopters.

I had never heard of BitPico, but it sounds like they know what they're doing, and are most likely BTC purists. This is probably why they have an issue with Ver and his attempt to make BCash the new BTC.

This group is stress testing "his" baby with a sustained 51% attack, and they aren't even hiding about it. They told him, lol.

I read this article and it discusses how they did this with the lightning network to test it's merit and see how well it addresses previous issues with network scalability. This group was apparently a driving force behind Segwit2x, and had seemingly dissapeared before giving the lightning network a good working over.

I don't think the idea is inherently malicious like other 51% attacks, except with the obvious intention of making Roger Ver cry. They are just performing due diligence for a coin that came out of nothing and was "given"/pumped to #2.

https://bitcoinist.com/roger-ver-bitpico-hard-fork-bitcoin-cash/

so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium

more social drama distractions.

I just assumed it was going to be machines from their group running the attack. Maybe any anti Bcash miners out there who jump on board if that option becomes possible.

Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.

It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.

if it was just miners. then when the pico pools make a block that deviates from the rules the bitcoin cash network has, the network would just reject the block.
it would need to be a node AND pool attack.. but the end result is the same. they just hash blocks only their system accepts.
its not disruption. its just altcoin creating and social distractions.

anyone can create an altcoin from any network. it does not even need to be 5000 nodes and 51% of hashrate to achieve it.
thus its just distraction drama to keep the "lets keep fingers pointing at ver" drama alive. much like kardashian drama, in the end


the core supporters have already done damage to the community with things like
"blockchain cant scale". meaning they are saying that satoshi's invention has failed
saying LN is the only solution. which is not an immutable ledger network and not even a network thats uniquely going to be used purely for btc
plus they are saying with factories. the users never have to resettle to a blockchain ever again...
showing that it can fork into altcoins

the revolution has been CORE-poratised

funny part is.
ver, bloq(segwitx2) samson mow/lukejr(USAF) and core devs are all paid by the same investors

which is why fee priorities, onchainscaling, trust of zero confirms, bypassing consensus and soon even PoW were/have/will damage the origiinal 2009 ethos of bitcoin

I'm not gtting involved in this childish drama. I'd rather just ignore it.  There is only one bitcoin.  Roger Ver tried his best to sabotage it  with his bitcoin.com website and talking shit about the OG bitcoin all day.

Thanks for all the info. I'll be honest I haven't really looked into the core team. I like to try and spend about half my time reading up on the progress/damage done over the years.

So you've given me  some good places to start reading up, as I've mostly focused on scams and vaporware. I've only spent a little time reading up on LN because I had no idea wht it was, now I just have the basics.

Know to best the dead horse so to say. Isn't a 51% attack supposed to hijack the blockchain for a time, through forking and running parallel so to speak. Using this time to usually create transactions and move/sell double spend coins.
Then, and I'm really fuzzy on this part, releasing control back to the original blockchain.

This is what I assumed was in mind.

a 51% is an empty argument scare tactic.
imagine if you had 10 friends(nodes). your all handed a piece of paper thats green
7 of your friends. reject it.. but you and 3 friends continue.

all that happens is that 70% of people just delayd.. THEMSELVES
...

now imagine those 7 friends were making the paper. like a 100metre relay-race where everyone crosses the line after 10s but there is only one winner
7 friends hand out pink paper. they hold onto it but they dont accept the green paper. you and 3 friends ignore the pink paper and wait the 0.001s for the runner with the green paper to arrive..
there is not much difference in the time you and your friends get the paper they want. but now they are ultimately forming thier own network(altcoin) where green rejects and bans pink from communicating and pink bans green from communicating..
thus green only talks to gren and pink only talks to pink
no disruption.. just social drama and a fork
now its just 2 different coin networks..

the only real disruption is not from altcoin creating (pico's challenge)... but..
to really disrupt a network is to have enough mining power to regularly make blocks and then . make blocks.. following the rules so that they are acceptable.. but then simply dont add any transactions into the blocks
and while doing this. spam the mempool with transactions the other pools would include, to cause a bottleneck..

as for the argument about "rejoining the ntwork"... wel btc is several blocks ahead of bch..
so why doesnt pico just try making a clone of btc data chain rejoin bch to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and btc are not compatible and thus reject
 so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin clams to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and clams are not compatible and thus reject
 so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin btg to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and bitcoin gold are not compatible and thus reject

It's worth posting the plain text interview bitpico did with for some website:


Looks like they tried to bring the LN network down too and they couldn't, I cannot wait to see how Bitcoin Cash handles the pressure. Their nodes are certainly centralized by some Amazon VPS in China. Full 32 MB blocks are going to crash most of the nodes if they have the resources to sustain the attack. Doesn't look to good for BCH, if it gets exposed it will be the end of the "blocks as big as needed" scaling approach.

BCH fans can't also claim that this is a blackhat attack. The fact that they are advertising it and giving a deadline is very whitehat. When Jihan, Roger and co spammed the Bitcoin network, they didn't say anything. The attack could be even more brutal if made by surprise at key times, but they are being nice.

Interesting... You can see in this shitty graph I made that they did attacks on 6/18, 6/21 and to a lesser extent 6/25. It looks like so far the network is holding up.

https://i.imgur.com/96cpFGq.png

BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.

Thanks for the analogy.

The network spamming sounds like the route they are going. I seem to recall someone doing a breakdown of this in regards to large pools that don't pay out transaction fees, to drive up the fees per block.

I know a fork can't rejoin after the fact different rules and what not. I guess with the last one I was thinking the BTG attack where they created double spends . These attacks are where I'm still fuzzy .


Not shitty if it gets the information across  ;)

They did say this is going to be a sustained "attack". Guess well see. If they aren't successful it will just save the BCH backers some time come September.

BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.

Correct, in this instance I was referring to the backers of BCH, passing it off as BTC.
 
Sorry if that wasn't clear

I noticed this myself in the fork.lol blocksize graph:

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/Hs1bxQT.png

This is nothing, they are just testing the software out to see if it works. When they release it and everyone can join the attack with their processing power it's when we'll see some good fireworks. The network is most likely a collapse but since ironically no one uses the coin, there will not be many complains and BCH supporters will label it as a success.

 I would be more happy, if all those guys would be trying to compel the government systems that bitcoin is something legit and trustworthy, maybe then we will gain more stability from that we have right now.

A lot of crypto currencies are discovered everyday. Some maintains standards and become famous and some are scam. Bitpico is one of the new currency. So know all the information's about it before investing.

Nope. Still not clear.

So who are 'the backers'? The uncountable masses who hold and use BCH, or do you have a more specific set of people in mind?

   As far as i know this project is not doing well. That’s why i always neglect these. Only bitcoin suitable for me. That’s why i love to invest on bitcoin. Because it is safer than other coins.

That's cute, but it's probably not going to work. The article's author is confused about how a 51% attack works. What BitPico seems to be planning is a "stress test" of extremely large transactions. They believe the following will result:


They plan to release a hard fork and they believe this will cause a multi-chain fork. In reality, the 5000 "attack nodes" are irrelevant in a hard fork because legacy nodes won't communicate with them.

And something tells me Bitmain won't let their baby be attacked so easily. If the majority of Bcash's hash rate is controlled by Bitmain or its proxies (and I believe that's true), they may be able to sidestep the attack very easily by censoring the attack transactions. The attack transactions will apparently be extremely large (their example (https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1012121282152992770) is an average transaction size of 0.6 MB). BitPico assumes that only rational mining incentive dictates which transactions are mined:


That's pretty absurd when a well-capitalized company like Bitmain is extremely invested in Bcash's success. I would also be very curious to see what funds BitPico has set aside to pay transaction fees. Attacks like this are not free, and their model depends on driving transaction fees up.

I'll help. Roger Ver. Roger Ver is using his influence to trick people into thinking BCH is "the real bitcoin." He's stated this numerous times. He goes out of his way to add confusion about bitcoin for the sake of his own profit. One needn't look further than bitcoin.com for confirmation of this, where he uses his ownership of the domain to muddy the distinctions between the two, frequently creating links that go to BCH-related content when they should be going to BTC-related content.

There, happy now?

it is a weird way of 51% attacking the network. maybe i understood it wrong but they are saying they will sybil attack the nodes (which they claim are centralized) and will only give them their own blocks which is where the 5000 nodes they claim they have come in.
the fork to create new coins from it like BitpicoCash is a completely different thing too.

in any case i hope they stop the social media bullshit and stick to the attack and then release more clarifying information about it. i believe they are exaggerating a lot of things.

Even if this attack is a success, I don't think BCH value will be down to the worrying level. They will simply fix it and everything will be same as before. People are not rational nowadays, altcoin like XVG, BTG, EOS, etc. still hold high value despite multiple attacks and/or bugs in their network.

some things aren't fixable!
for example when you have 32 MB blocks and the whole reason why your altcoin exists is to have a bigger block, you can't just fork back and turn it to a smaller size block again.
or when your coin (BTG) is successfully attacked and is easy to wipe its blockchain with a 51% attack you can't do much about it. and it has lost value. it was 0.3BTC at some point and now it is 0.003BTC.
or when your blockchain is more than 1 TB (ETH) you can't do anything about it. it is your blockchain and you can't discard it, you are already centralized.

Interesting enough , if people are confused about which coin is which, and the guy actually succeeds in bringing Bitcoin Cash's network down,
odds are those confused people Sell everything with the name Bitcoin in it including Bitcoin-segwit , not just cash.
He might cause a super crash in all bitcoin named coins, just because people don't bother to learn the difference.  :P

All it will take is 1 media outlet forgetting to add Cash on the end and say Hacker Crashes Bitcoin, and we might see a super sell off.

Still want to see if he can pull off crashing the network or if it is just smoke and mirrors.

I wasn't unhappy before.

So let me see if I understand you. One single person is passing BCH off as BTC*, so you believe that then entire chain should be attacked.

Is that correct?

* (an assertion, BTW, with which I do not see any evidence of)

(Incidentally, are you nutildah also steamtyme?)

Definitely worth posting.

As far as the attack; their obviously not trying to hide it. It's as transparent a test as I can think of. It's no different than equipment before being installed you test with the anticipated result of finding the limits.



Yeah the first reading left me a little confused. Franky helped clear most of that up for me.

I wholly expect Bitmain will have its issues with those, but like I said I firmly believe this to be a schoolyard callout, as in prepare yourself as best you can I'm coming.

Looking up BitPico they talk about Whales. Know I don't follow wallets, but if any large holders cashed out and bought back in over the last 8 months they have funds to spare.


Thanks. I'm not as active away from work.


I only like the social media aspect because it creates some transparency. It says watch us and then you can judge us and the coin.

I honestly don't know enough to guess if they are overstating


No, I guess take my word for it.  

Although I do realize I have started at a negative level of credibility with you. Consider it my way of making up for lost time in adoption.

To add to the "backers" I would put bitmain in there. Definitely created a market almost instantly by accepting BCH as a form of payment for gear.

Here's the thing regardless I'm torn on this coin, for entirely selfish reasons. I don't think it affects overall crypto adoption when you consider the thousands of other coins and forks. I just think if your coin is as great as advertised, run it on it's own merits; which I guess this testing may quantify. I mine BTC, this coin at the moment does pull a massive amount of hashrate away from BTC,an amount it helped create, helping keep mining an option.

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw)

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

Not really sure if anyone attacking Bcash really can be called Bitcoin purists. Merely acknowledging Ver's baby might almost be called recognition of it as a "competitor". Methinks the purists aren't at all bothered by what's going on with alternative chains and only focusing on Bitcoin.

I mean, I can understand having a point to prove, but should we prove it with the 30 or so forks (more?!) of Bitcoin? They're the ones with points to prove, after all. Not Bitcoin.

i don't think anybody has a problem with what you "think". you are entitled to your opinion but the problems start when try to force it on others specially newcomers.
like when newbies come to your website (bitcoin.com) and you sell them BCH when they thought they were buying bitcoin!

In crypto market most of the coins are come after the invention of btc based on this btc make innovation in internet so people can buy many things with this coins also in market there are many coins like btc are available but they are not good enough like btc.

Why not complete the periodic table of the elements so we wont wait for another in future,its tiring about reading all this damn forks and if does i guess this is the end of cryptocurrency lol

But i love the concept of the OPs post regarding the tears of roger ver,i wanna see more like this in the future

Exactly what i was thinking as well. By attacking them they are labeling it as a competitor and they have even given it a lot of attention as well. This is indeed not necessary at all.

This can go two ways:

The Bitcoin Cash network can survive the attack and the Roger Ver minions will argue that it is their proof that it is a robust network. < In my opinion this attack will just prove that it is very expensive to attack networks with big block sizes >

On the other hand, if it is successful, then Core supporters will have more ammunition that BCrash is trash. <Most of the Roger Ver minions will have the same excuse that we had, when we <core> was attacked.

So attacks like this will not prove anything, it will just give everyone a opportunity to complain about the other side, using dirty tactics.  ::)

Maybe this was had to happen one day. Bitcoin cash is fraudulently forked from Bitcoin . Though Roger very always denied this fact.

I think you need to learn the definitions of 'open source' and 'permissionless'.

They will still conduct an attack and draw the appropriate conclusions.  Or maybe they want to launch something new, so they want to taint bitcoin.

I don't think you can just divide in % "things that make Bitcoin Bitcoin". You are either in the Bitcoin chain or you aren't. That means, longest chain is what determines what the actual Bitcoin network is, not "what satoshi said", otherwise you wouldn't need a decentralized network, or at least he would have hard-coded an automatic blocksize increase, not leave it out open to consensus, if there is no such consensus, then it continues being Bitcoin, like it or not.
The #1 thing that gives Bitcoin value is it's certainty and safety. ANY altcoin is prime to move value from A to B, yet NO altcoin can compete with Bitcoin in terms of certainty, of a solid network that's hard to change.

Satoshi either knew that 1MB was it, or didn't realize how at some point it would be too late to make such a change and get everyone on board. If you can hop through hardfork to hardfork it just means your project it's either irrelevant or centralized. When a project gets too big, it's simply impossible to get everyone agreeing. There's no clear way to decide about blocksize increases when the project is as big as Bitcoin is.

Now what you could do is have blocks as big as possible at the beginning like BCH did, to make room for transactions, yet that posses very big theoretical centralizing risks that we may find in practice this september if the BitPico attack is serious, then it would finally be proven that big blocks don't cut it and it would be a risk to store wealth there. If miners thought that BCH was safer than BTC, they would go all in on BCH, but they know there are risks and they don't want to be paid in a token that could plummet.

Mainly in market there are many coins are available based on those 1500 coins btc is the best crypto system also this give huge profit to their customers also they are offering many facilities to the customer yes altcoins are doing also well based on this topic Bcash acting like bitcoin.

Whether or not "BCH is Bitcoin" isn't the issue here. This isn't a philosophical argument about bigger blocks.

BitPico is claiming the network is extremely easy to attack, and is supposedly mounting such an attack to destroy public trust in the coin. I'm not convinced their attack model is viable, and this feels like a publicity stunt. But I'm watching to see what they produce.

i guess we will see the results and know soon enough. but as @Kakmakr said above, this social media drama is just going to breed more drama whether their project fails or succeeds.

this statement is for when a different kind of fork happens. like for example when an orphan block happens, there are two chains for a little while: one chain which will grow longer as others build on it and that is the Bitcoin chain, and one chain that people abandon so it would be shorter and contains that orphaned block(s).
otherwise when you fork to create another coin intentionally (like BCH) your chain can be longer but that doesn't make it bitcoin. in fact BCH chain is already longer. there are other forked coins that are much longer too, for example you can fork and decrease the time between blocks (eg. 1 block per minute) so you will have a longer chain in a short time.
edit: this part was wrong (thanks to @jbreher) but the main point stands. the "longest chain" aka the chain with the most "poof of work" is talking about another kind of fork. reading the bitcoin paper the "longest chain" is always used in that context not this new form of forking bitcoin. the forks like BCH that create an altcoin can technically end up having a longer chain (with the most proof of work) and still not be bitcoin.

Hmm,
Sorry but from a technical standpoint ,
if the 32MB is a security problem, but can only be exploited if 32 mb blocks are created,
A hard fork dropping BCH back down to 8MB limit would circumvent the problem.
and even if somehow the BCH blockchain was forever tainted (which is doubtful), they could still run a swap to a new blockchain that had the fixes already included.

As long as their community is willing to support it, it will survive, as that is the thing about all coins, their strength comes from their supporters not just code.
So even if the guy crashes the BCH network and highlights a new security issue, it's supporters are not going to just give up,
thinking that is a serious underestimation of your competition.
Wishful thinking on the segwit-core crowd part , but not realistic thinking.

---

Chinese Miners control over 51% of both segwit-core & bitcoin cash, both are centralized.
Your phrase If there is a large enough consensus any Proof of Work blockchain can be changed.
Observe that the btc miners rewrote 24 blocks on March 12, 2013 :
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/
Six hours were overwritten according to the article.

It might be one of Roger Ver's sock puppets disguised as a Core supporter, deceiving everyone that it is "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network only fail on purpose.

The end of this drama will be, Roger Ver "wins" and then announces that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to network attacks. Hahaha.

this is the first thing that came to my mind too.
because first of all they have been so much more vocal than they have been active. you can see the bigger blocks but not much else results. so now I think it is strongly possible that this was a social media sham from the start trying to advertise bitcoin cash more as a secure network that you can't attack.

The same guys did the same thing to bitcoin when the Lightning Network was introduced. Of course BTC doesn't need that kind of publicity because its already bigger than every single other coin put together.

Actually, only a soft fork is required, since lowering the block size limit doesn't remove or relax consensus rules. All that would be required is 51% hash power support, and then users would follow the forked chain by default.

The problem is more philosophical: big blocks = BCH's raison d'être. If it turns out big blocks are unsafe, and block size must be lowered to just 2x that of Bitcoin, why does it even exist? What's the point?


BitPico also backed Segwit2x and tried to carry it out even after everyone else had abandoned it. I wouldn't assume anything about their motives here.

This could certainly be a ploy to execute a "failed" attack against BCH. If such a highly publicized "attack" were to fail, BCH might come out looking good, yeah?

Well, no. In Bitcoin, 'longest' is not defined as 'greatest block height', it is defined as 'most accumulated proof of work'.

Hmm. CMC reports Bitcoin dominance at 42.8%.

Must be 'new math'.

"Bigger" would mean different aspects, not only the market capitalization in my opinion. Compare Bitcoin's network effects, security, stability, and usefulness as a decentralized, censorship resistant "hard money" against all altcoins combined, then I believe we would agree that there is only Bitcoin.

Back on the topic, what is the latest gossip on this "attack"?

All those aspects are factored into the market cap. Econ 101.

Then I believe that using market capitalization as the "base of dominance" is flawed because to use Ethereum as an example, it is mainly used for issuing ICO shitcoins for projects that have no real usage in the real world. The other altcoins are more of the same.

Agreed. I would say at least 90% of the total market cap is speculation-based.

Take for example Bitcoin Cash... Probably 99% of its value is speculative. Statistically zero real-world implementation, because I'm rounding down the less than 1/2 percent to zero.

I think all coins need to be stress tested to make sure they are secure. If bitcoin cash is a legitimate cryptocurrency, it should be able to withstand this type of attack. We will find out in the coming months I suppose just how strong the bitcoin cash network is.

Yeah Ok

Not that the most decentralized blockchain is the real bitcoin

The one that holds all the illegal transactions from Silk Road

the one that can incriminate some very very big people

Leave the real blockchain alone, gotta catch the criminals (do not protect them)

Your reasons are "bitcoin cash has ths, bitcoin core does not". What kind of bullshit rhetoric is that?

Funny how the only people who call bitcoin "bitcoin core" are BCH supporters. Its pretty sad that Roger dragged that drama onto bitcoin.com. Guess somebody should make a bitcoincore.com? Lol, what a joke.

There are 3 main reasons by BCH isn't the real bitcoin.

1. The real bitcoin came first, and there literally would be no BCH without bitcoin.
2. BTC is just starting to break into the mainstream and actually be used for things, BCH is not.
3. The symbol for bitcoin is BTC. That's the real bitcoin. The symbol for Bitcoin Cash is BCH.

Roger might have retained some respectability if he had developed his own name for his altcoin. Instead he's simply riding on the coat-tails of bitcoin, which is quite evident by observing all the ways he's hijacked bitcoin.com to support BCH, to fuel his insatiable greed.

all true but this is not how things work.
1. there is only one bitcoin that existed from the start. "came first" doesn't make sense in my opinion.
2. any other altcoin can and possibly will in the future enter mainstream but it won't make it bitcoin.
3. the symbol is platform specific, some call it XBT :D

the only important thing that makes bitcoin, bitcoin is the majority support. that is how it works in a decentralized network.
- the majority of hashing power aka miners
- the majority of nodes which represents people using bitcoin the right way
- the majority of services, businesses, merchants,...
we all decided this chain that we are using that now has Segregated Witness enabled is bitcoin so it is bitcoin.

- bitcoin cash didn't have the miner support so they had to create the incentive for them to come and mine it (difficulty manipulation and 1000+ blocks (12500 BCH/day) per day instead of 144 normal blocks/day)
- it didn't have the node support so they had to run a lot themselves on datacenters
- there is no merchants apart from bitcoin.com and the things they create. then some smaller ones here and there wanting to hype their business by adding multiple altcoins one of which is BCH

As much as I want it, They won't be able to collapse Bcash.

Roger would pay them whatever to prevent it from happening. There is a chance he already owns them already. Just like a long term con artist would do, bitpico first attacked LN (some call it a "stress test") to gain credibility and now they are going to do it on Bcash, so they say.

I say bullshit.

Roger Ver's propaganda is that "Bitcoin bilaterally split into Bitcoin Cash after the hard fork, and Bitcoin Core after the Segwit soft fork. There is no Bitcoin anymore. But Bitcoin Cash is still the real Bitcoin because Satoshi's vision". Hahaha.


Social consensus and accumulated proof of work are what ascertains "what is Bitcoin?"


Hahaha, what?


The Bitcoin Cash community should kick out Roger Ver and his friend Craig Wright and start building their coin's reputation from its own merits.

Nick Szabo once said that "Bitcoin Cash is centralized sockpupptery". Bitpico is now proving it true.

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1017514874291843072



Roger Ver is always convincing everyone in the community about the "non-mining nodes do not matter" narrative for good reason. Always be cynical if you see someone else saying it in the forum.

Some newbies might not know who is Nick Szabo. Read this, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/genesis-files-bit-gold-szabo-was-inches-away-inventing-bitcoin/

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built. Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.
 

BitPico's 'attack' fell flat on its face due to programming errors, and they ignorantly attributed their failure to 'centralization'.
Haha. Nice try.
I'm sure we'll get to the stress test when they learn how to format a valid Bitcoin transaction.

Isolate? No, they are there to enforce the rules. If non-mining nodes did not have "any effect" on the network then would it be "ok" for only mining nodes to run, enforcing their rules and their rules only?


Why then did the NYA not use that strategy for btc1/2X?

News flash: they do.


Apply brain. The question answers itself.

Are you trying to obliquely deny that non-mining validating entities are subject to Sybil attack?

Yes they do, if they run their own nodes. But let us ask ourselves this question, "Whose rules are the miners enforcing?"

I believe the answer is easily answered by knowing what nodes the miners are running or what nodes their mining farms are connected to. Which will also give us another question, "Whose rules is the Bitcoin network enforcing, the Core developers or someone else's?"


No, but I am confused by own answer. Let me internalize this and answer back later. Hahaha.

hmmm  :-\ , what would that 10btc look like in 5 years  ;D

Another news flash: miners run nodes. Indeed, in the design of Bitcoin, nodes are miners. But nevertheless, whether or not a miner chooses not to run a non-mining validating entity (I suppose this is what you mean when you improperly use the term 'node') has zero to do with the fact that the miners enforce their rules and their rules only.


Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.


Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

But if they do not run a node themselves then they are delegating the enforcement of the rules to someone else.


But what software are the mining pools or the miners running? Bitcoin Core 0.16.1? So are they, together with the other non-mining nodes, under the enforcement of rules developed by the Core developers?


But what design? Does it not apply anymore? Mining has become very specialized, and cartelized or centralized.


The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today. Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split? Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.


In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?

Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus.
 

They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners.

(grammatical edits)

ok lets set this matter straight.

TL:DR;
summary
hashrate- meaningless bigger hashrate does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos it has lots of hashrate
non-mining usernodes: meaningless more copies does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos many copies exist
non-mining mrchant nodes: has sway. because if a merchant can s a payment. then a pool can spend its reward and users can daytrade/buy stuff

waffle version:
mining pools can change the format of a block to anything they please and within thier community get their friends to download node versions to accept such new block styles. but when other nodes receive the blocks, if they dont fit the others rules the blocks get rejected. ... and it does not matter how much hash power went into the creation of the block. if it doesnt fit the rules, its rejected.

random guy 'jimmy' with just a node in his basement doesnt have sway over the community direction the network changes. and mining pools also cant just send out a new block format that nodes automatically accept new blocks (blocks do not AI rewrite the rules of nodes)

node users need to download a version that accepts the new blocks. again. pools cant just make a new format and magically make old nodes accept it

now heres where the non-mining community do have sway
what needs to happen is the merchants/exchanges which the pools and users use have more non-mining sway. because if a merchant/exchange is not seeing transactions then pools/users cannot spend their funds. so as i said little jimmy cant sway the network but if the majority of merchants/exchanges accept block B format. usually everyone else follows
...
flipping the argument
anyone can set up 20,000 littl jimmys that accept block B format. and also set up a pool of 56exahash accepting block B.. but in the end if coinbase, blockchain.info, bitstamp, (list many othr merchants) and the pools are still block A, merchants and pools will just reject blockB and ban nodes sending out blockB. thus making block B an altcoin that is unspendabl due to no mrchant adoption

end result is no disruption to the block A network. and block B jimmys and 56exahash pool of block B .. but ends up only communicating with their own kind as a altcoin.

the non-mining nodes DO have sway.. but its not home user sway of majority.. its who will accept my money/sees my payment (merchant) sway

believe it or not back in 2012. MTGOX and silkroad.. just 2 nodes had more non-mining community sway than 4000 non-mining nodes. they could have collaberated and said they will only accept blocks/tx of X format/fee/value. and you would have soon seen the pools adapt to it so that the pools could spend their rewards on mtgox. and the 4000 users would have downloaded the new rules so they too could day trade/buy drugs.

take most crap coin scenarios. when an exchange drops a crapcoin. it does not matter how much hashrate that coin had.
or what amount the user node count may rise or drop to. the usernode count made no difference
if theres no where to spend it. that crap coin dies off, miners switch their asics over to another coin that is acceptable to exchanges. and unless the community can hold out and rally other exchanges to take that crap coin on, the community moves to another coin too. crying that they are left with a bag of crap thats now worthless

it does not matter if there are 2million copies of the same blockchain or just 7000 copies. if the 7000 copies are merchants. then the 1.999,300 user nodes could decide to reject blocks. but then they are rejcting blocks of tx's that merchants recognise. thus the usernodes are just separating themselves from being able to spend thir own funds.. basically punishing themselves to download and hold blocks that cant be spent

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?


But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.


I don't know, but I believe either one of them, separated, without consensus, will not achieve anything. The top Bitcoin merchants tried it through 2X, but without the smaller merchants support and the community they have nothing.
 

I believe it is not that simple. It is misinforming to simply say "they will".

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.


No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?


So you are implying that 'top Bitcoin merchants' and miners are the same group?


So do you believe that, under the (false) hypothetical that non-mining validators have power over the consensus rules, that miners bent on changing the rules would not spin up an overwhelming count of such non-mining validators?

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?


But if the miners came to decide to do a Sybil attack because it is "easy", do you believe that the economic majority running non-mining nodes will follow? Would it not cause another chain-split? Do you really believe that the miner's chain will be called "the Bitcoin"?


Not all the time. But the NYA signatories consisted of the top Bitcoin merchants and services, and 83% of the total hashrate. They supported the hard fork to a 2mb block size, but the community, who ran non-mining nodes that can easily be "Sybilized" were the ones followed. Why?


Would it be the economically correct decision for miners to do a Sybil attack on Bitcoin?

It they don't hide themself probably the idea is to stress the blockchain to reduce BCH adoption, against Ver's endorsements.

Speaking of Sybil attacks, who controls the Alibaba nodes in Bitcoin Cash? Is it Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or Jihan Wu? Those nodes might be used to force a hard fork to the direction of who controls them on the whole network.

Yes, it answered the question fully. There is no way of knowing what the motivation of any party is, as that is internal to their mind only. All we can know is what happened - which is that miners activated Segwit.


Why are you dodging my question? Answer the question I posed to you above.

And again, you seem to be laboring under some delusion that non-mining validators have some relation to economic power. What is your justification for this assumption?

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

does not matter what you believe in

Future proves past

nice timing

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

We know what the answer is. If the miners activate it under their own prerogative, it would have activated some months before August, 2017. But you are free to believe what you believe.


All exchanges run their own nodes. All the merchants also run nodes. There are users who run nodes to have their own view of the blockchain and to validate transactions. Any node not following the rules will be rejected. Do you believe the miners have all the "power" and expect the everyone to follow whatever they want to do in the network without risking a chain split?


Do they pay in Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin? Haha.

BitPico said within 6 weeks, so he still has until August 7,2018 before his supposed time window is up.

You can monitor his twitter : https://twitter.com/bitpico?lang=en

Aside from claiming to record Bitcoin Cash node IP address, not really much else mentioned so far.

It would appear the attack failed, the reason given (as you mentioned) was their 800 nodes were banned from the network, which can be seen as an act of centralization. Blocks don't seem to be of any size out of the ordinary, at an average of 70-80 kb (pretty miniscule). Still, the network remains in tact.

https://i.imgur.com/he0ut4a.png

Regardless, this coin is a joke led by mass deception, and after what Roger did with bitcoin.com it should be evident to anybody capable of critical thought that he's something of a greed-driven, egotistical madman.

Roger Ver also used his website to threaten Bity to list Bitcoin Cash or "he would remove the exchange from bitcoin.com's exchange listing". Haha.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di44RD5UcAAzQLi?format=jpg

I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Oof. Forgot about Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto. Two of the biggest known liars in the cryptosphere.

Its like, how much money is enough? The average GDP of all the countries in the world is $17,300, yet these two multimillionaires throw their weight around trying to bend reality for even more personal financial gain, instead of promoting cryptocurrency for what it was intended: helping the average person by leveling the financial playing field.

I don't think all the money in the world would be enough for these two. They are driven by a weird, deep-seeded psychological need to be recognized as God, or something.

The fact that they use the word bitcoin in their coin shows how much confidence they have on their coin. We cannot say it was unintentional, he did it on purpose to fool others.

No, I believe the end goal of Bitcoin, and I cannot speak for other cryptocurrencies, is censorship resistance. Plus decentralization is only the means to reach that goal, which many people mistake as "it, decentralization," as the goal.


They also love conspiracy theories, https://news.bitcoin.com/why-is-blockstream-working-with-national-spies-sigint-humint/

Where's my pay? Do you dole it out? You owe me big time, dude (or dudette).

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.


Publicly denounce him.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

Really!? Exactly why has my post been deleted? It is exactly on-topic, and it is not abusive to any other participants. Exactly what drew your ire?


Not to mention the other posts you deigned to eradicate... uncomfortable truths, Mr Moderator?

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash. Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?


Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network. The more nodes there are, the more resilient the network will be. But explain to me why you believe not and why I am wrong.

Maybe you are also right that, at full scale, Bitcoin's consensus security does not come from the amount of full nodes. But we will never go to a point of "security at full scale" if the users' ability to run their own nodes are taken away from them, and to let the miners freely dictate consensus.

You know what I find hilarious? The apparent OCD need that small blockers have to insert personalities such as Roger and Craig (and the other favorite boogieman, whom you missed - Jihan) into every conversation about Bitcoin Cash. I do not 'support' such personalities. Their existence is completely irrelevant to my 'support' of Bitcoin Cash, which I support for its superior properties.

Just. Get. Over. It.


No. I believe that nobody should be barred from running non-mining validators. As an example, I am not a miner, and I run a non-mining validator. Several actually. But I am not laboring under any false pretense that my running of these non-mining validators brings any benefit to the Bitcoin network. They might benefit me as an end user in my ability to transact purely permissionlessly, but they do nothing for the network as a whole.


Do you believe you have answered the question with the statement above? Because you have not. I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you are just suffering some cognitive dissonance. Let me try again. There is a concept of 'economic power' it is measured in actual holdings of Bitcoin (whether BTC or BCH as appropriate per network) - fundamentally, after stripping away all the bullshit, this is a scalar quantity. There is also an absolute count of the number of non-mining validators - another integer. The question is: Why do you think that knowledge of the integer number of non-mining validators has anything whatsoever to do with the integer that is a measure of economic power?

I know, and I'm sorry. It is maybe because of Bitcoin Cash's history of being closely related to Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Some Bitcoiners also believe that they control Bitcoin Cash. Personally, I give their community the benefit of the doubt.


Yes but it also benefits you by having a "voice" in the network. I know you would argue against the success of the USAF and NO2X, but they are two examples of having a voice and acting on it by running thr node.


Are we talking about representation of the economic majority by running full nodes or economic power? But even "economic power measured in actual holdings" cannot over-power the economic majority as the failure of the NYA has shown, correct?

No. The economic majority wields economic power. My fault for introducing a new term, albeit meant to be a synonym.

But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

The economic majority wields some power but not all the power in the network. Everyne must also be in consensus or else there is a chain split.


I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again.

The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules.

But tell me why you believe that the higher count of non-mining full nodes have no bearing on the network. Would it not be easier for miners to do a Sybil attack if the non-mining full node count is very low?

You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority.

I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation.

Why do you think that the number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority?

Because if each real user and each real merchant ran a Bitcoin full validating node, it is, because they all validate and enforce the rules. If they did not run one for reasons like "the only nodes that matter are the mining nodes" then what is stopping the miners from changing the rules?

But you are sidestepping my question too. Why do you believe that a higher count of non-mining nodes have no bearing on the network? Would it not centralize all power towards miners if there are no non-mining full nodes?

No. I have answered many of your questions. I am not answering this new one until you address the question I have repeatedly posed to you. Which you have not.

"If." if if if. Not an answer. Yet another non-sequitur. Tell me a reason you believe that a measure of non-mining validators is in any way a measure of economic majority.

But I did in the best way that I can make you understand. Plus if you want to sidestep my question because you have no answer, it's ok.


I was only using that as an example. You are nitpicking.


Then what is the correct answer, if you know it? I am not asking as a challenge, but to inquire and learn.

I simply accepted it would have been machines from their gathering running the assault. Perhaps any hostile to Bcash excavators out there who bounce on board if that alternative ends up conceivable.
In light of that, I was speculating they aren't anticipating keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) simply utilizing this as a disturbance to the Bcash system to demonstrate its vulnerabilities.
It would appear to be extremely outlandish for them to make these structures and afterward keep them alive. Except if their solitary issue is that Bcash is guaranteeing to be Bitcoin. In the event that that is the situation why a waste.

Well, the rather obvious correct answer is that a measure of the number of non-mining validating entities has fuck-all to do with a measure of economic power.

However, your entire argument that the desires of the miners (as a class) is held in check by the desires of non-mining validators (as a class) is utterly dependent upon the assumption that non-mining validator count is a valid proxy for economic power. These numbers bear no relation to each other. Which is why you are either too internally mentally conflicted to be able to see this simple fact, or you are too dishonest in your argument to admit it.

This is great.  Roger Ver is a stain on the crypto community, and it's nice to see him taken down a few pegs.  No respect for that guy.

Yes but if there are too few non-mining full nodes then it would be easier for the miners to "Sybilize" their way to change the rules, is it not?

I do not know what the exact number of nodes is enough for decentralization, but I believe it would be better to overshoot security than undershoot it.

Personally, I don't think Wind_FURY is dishonest,

I believe Wind_FURY is just really really stupid.  :)

* Agree with jbreher*


FYI:
@Wind_FURY, why don't you re read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4554671.msg42433804#msg42433804
like a few hundred times and see if it sink in , what jbreher told you and Franky1 one already pointed out.

In the end the Merchants hold the economic power as they are the ones accepting or refusing the transactions as payment for their services or products.
Number of non-mining nodes are irrelevant. One is as good as a billion , as long as you can access the one and trust it.
All they do is verify the same entry, so how many times , would you need someone to tell you 2+2=4 over & over again before you believe them.
The Merchants are trusting whichever crypto service node, they are using, so multiple merchants are all trusting Coinbase's non-mining node and caring little about what the other nodes report, such as the one in your basement.

Again: the miners implement whatever rules they so choose. They have no need to 'Sybilize', as non-mining validators have no power of enforcement.

So, no.

Well, that may not be the case.

Many in this bct.org echo chamber accept as axiomatic many things that are not true, just because they are part of the local religious dogma. If they'd bother to honestly examine their preconceptions, they'd likely arrive at an understanding of how Bitcoin really works.

I agree, I am stupid and I have never said that I am smart. I am hear to learn, and I am open to hear to anything you say to convince me. But are you saying anything good to learn from? No.


But are the users not a part of the economic majority? Was the failure of 2X not a lesson that the users can also impose themselves on the network?

Plus what is the difference of the nodes from the other nodes' point of view? They all validate and relay transcations and blocks if valid. Nodes do not care if it is a mining node, a merchant's node, or a node in a basement.

Can you answer this?


I want to know your opinion.

Well, you have not defined what you mean by the term 'users'. But if I may speculate that you are referring to bitcoin transacters that are neither merchants nor miners, the answer is 'of course they are part of the economic majority'.

The issue that I have had with your ongoing position is your confused notion that a count of non-mining validators has some relationship with the economic majority.

Now you seem to be introducing another confused notion that a count of non-mining validators has some relationship with the count of users? Not sure if this is really what you mean, but again, no.


In that 'users' (again, you have not defined the term) are a proxy for the economic power of those users, yes - but only in relation to the economic power of other entities in the system. And again - non-mining validators are not a measure of 'users', for any logical definition of the term 'users'.


None. Well, they can be, if the operator goes in and edits bitcoin.conf. Or is a non-mining validator is cast out of the allowed peers due to dishonesty. But by default, all non-mining validators treat other potential peers identically.

Users are Users, they only have an effect on the economic power, when they buy or sell bitcoins.
Unless they are buying or selling in the millions per day, their effect on the economics is too small to notice.
Merchants have a greater effect on economic power because of the higher % , that flows thru them.

All of the Merchants using Coinbase , are not running their own node, they are using Coinbase's node and completely trusting coinbase to maintain it ,
they are not even hooked up to the bitcoin network so they could care less what your basement node is doing.

Example:
I have never ran a bitcoin node, because their is no financial incentive for me to do so. (No interest or transaction fees earned)
I gain nothing from keeping a bitcoin wallet maintained and synced and instead use the exchange's wallet to hold my bitcoins and letting their node be the arbiter.
Am I giving up some security because of this , sure. But the additional security is not worth it to me , as I don't hold bitcoin as a store of value but only use it as a payment network when required. I also never break the cardinal rule: Never leave more coins sitting on a single exchange than what you are willing to lose.
Most Merchants are the same as they immediately convert to fiat to avoid fluctuations in btc price verses fiat, because the input costs to run their business are in fiat not crypto.




Sorry to butt in jbreher, I'll leave you guys to your conversation after this.

Sybil attacks
1. can refuse to relay transactions and slow down block propagation to other nodes.
2. can isolate your node from the network and block you from syncing with the network.
3. can in some rare cases cause you to run on a temporary fork.
(In which case, transactions won't match the rest of the network.
Monitoring a trusted 3rd party block explorer that it block height matches your node is a easy way to block sybil attack.)

(Including addnodes in your conf file to a few trusted IPs, blocks Sybil attacks 2 & 3)  :)

Sybil attacks can not change the program code on my node therefore they can not change the rules of the network.
IE: They can't change hard coded things like block size or block speed or anything that my node program code will reject.

True, but trivial to counteract.


True, but trivial to counteract.


True, but trivial to counteract. As you point out. Though 'trusted' is not really as important is avoiding nefarious peers.

I reply to this one first.

Ok. But what if the Bitcoin network has very few mining or non-mining nodes. Would it not be an open opportunity for some group to do a UAHF Sybil set up to force the decentralized part of the network to hard fork to the rules the group wants?

Is it possible that that kind of set up, controlled by Jihan Wu, is in place in Bitcoin Cash's network?

Nope,  
Sybil attacks can not change the program code on my node therefore they can not change the rules of the network.
# of nodes is irrelevant.

You are confusing a hard fork with a sybil attack.  My previous post explained what a sybil attack could do:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4554671.msg43399300#msg43399300

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp
A hard fork  as it relates to blockchain technology, is a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid (or vice-versa).
This requires all nodes or users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.

*Any attempts to change the protocol with less than full consensus of all of the miners does nothing more than create an ALT coin for the splinter group.*

I have contemplated on this debate, and I admit my mistake, and that it is true that Bitcoin's consensus security does not come from the amount of "users" running full nodes, but from the unableness of bad actors from changing the "rules" from both the mining side and the client side.

But we will not have a network that will have real full scale consensus security if we let miners dictate consensus freely by saying "only mining nodes matter" which Roger Ver and some from community are saying. Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:
 
@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we? The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

Enjoyed watching you and Wind_Fury discuss the network.

I'm going to lock the topic, as there is no need for it to be around. Request received to reopen topic

I have always doubted them since the day they tweeted that they were "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network. I believe that it was made to fail, and planned, for Roger Ver to tell the world that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to attacks. But it does not show to be the case.

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.


That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

are you retarded? :) BCH will NEVER be bitcoin ... never ever.

 ;D

Bcash shills r obvious = n00b!!

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter? Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

I believe Roger Ver would have more of a point if he starts delivering the message that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin".

Because no one or no company owns the word "Bitcoin". Like no one owns the word "Linux", there is Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Linux Mint, etc.

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.


No. Not at all.


With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

Ronald Ver should be charged for BITCOIN TREASON  :o  muhahaha

Then would'nt that statement be in opposition to


this statement? I am officially now confused. Hahaha.


Ok, but in a more practical sense, running your own node does make you validate your own transactions without the need for 3rd party trust.


It is also a positive thing to scale up the network with nodes increase than decrease over time. I believe more research on low latency block propagation, efficiency, and speed is a must.

Everyone is welcome to join the debate and make an explanation in jbreher's place. Read my last post, saying that I am now officially confused. Haha.

It has been a discussion and debate of learning and knowledge finding. Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful posts.

::sigh::

No, the statements are not in opposition. You still seem to be under the delusion that centralization of non-mining validators (which you persist in mistakenly calling 'nodes') matters. As I have already explained to you (repeatedly...), the count of non-mining validators HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE NETWORK.

So yes - very few non-mining validators would be relative centralization of non-mining validators, but no - this condition does not matter to the network.

Yeah, if that tweet really was made by them, it makes them look flaky and utterly lacking in credibility, given that they claimed to be fighting to support bitcoin. In my view all markets and especially commodities are manipulated, so there is no reason to single out bitcoin for this.

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running? If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes? If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

So they created a core support team that wants to produce altcoins that have satoshi genesis blocks and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data, such as copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. aluminum bitcoin. but I better ignore it. There is only one bitcoin. Roger Ver tries his best to sabotage the bitcoin.com site and talk about bitcoin OG all day.

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.


As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.


Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

Ok but if non-mining full nodes have no power on the network then what was the UASF and the NO2X movements? Were they not comprised of users running non-mining full nodes?

If the cash bitcoin is a legitimate cryptocurrency, it will be able to withstand this type of attack. In that condition, I have speculated that they do not anticipate keeping any branch alive (nothing to back up ) simply uses this as a scramble for the Bcash system to prove its vulnerabilities.

Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?

In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?

Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.

Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?

No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.

I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.

By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.

If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will  be the result?

But it is already common knowledge that there is a cartelization or centralization in Bitcoin mining, and Jihan Wu controls the largest hash rate.


Yes it will die because they are only a small part of the network. They will be forced to follow Jihan Wu or become irrelevant. But what if Cobra's #UANF has gained the momentum like the UASF and NO2X? Wouldn't that show that non-mining node numbers also matter?

Depends upon how one interprets the figures. ATM, Coingeek is the largest BCH mining pool. Jihan seems committed also to supporting the mining of BTC. If he redirected his hashpower to BCH, it may swing the balance, and may not. It may also invoke a catastrophic crash in hashpower on the BTC chain -- one that BTC may never recover from, as BTC has no ability to retarget difficulty due to step-function changes in hashpower.


No, it would not. What it would show is that the miners respect their interpretation of the desires of the economic majority.

That would be the "safe" answer. But miner centralization is already common knowledge.


But it would also open an opportunity for other miners, pro-Jihan or anti-Jihan because it would be the most practical and profitable choice for them.

[/quote]

If Segwit as a soft fork, to kill AsicBoost was desired by the Bitcoin Cash's economic majority, would Bitmain and Jihan Wu respect it and activate it immediately?

I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter. Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?

It is -- I will just state it -- stupid to ask me this question. Ask Jihan. He is the only one that can accurately answer this question.

But again, your rhetorical is ludicrous. BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.


You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.


Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.

You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.

Upon further research, turns out that there is actual discrepancies between Roger Ver and Craig Stephen Wright. This has many rammifications, including how these big twitter megaphones aren't no longer shouting for the same fork.

Craig will create Bitcoin SV client, and Roger Ver apparently is done with Craig and his nChain stuff, meaning that Ver will support Bitcoin ABC.

If Jihan also supports ABC, it means that Jihan will mine this fork while Craig's miners will point to Bitcoin SV.

The fun part is that due the changed EDA there is no "blockchain death spiral" of sorts, which means all these forks will keep on going, so Bitcoin Cash will have a ton of diluted forkchains as time goes on.

Big clusterfuck ahead for cashiers.

So much for that Corean 'buhbut BCH is centralized' canard.

is anyone watching the BCH "stress test"?
it is supposed to start in 8 hours but it seems like they started it about 10+ hours ago with some spams which could produce 1 ~8 MB blocks as far as i can tell, interestingly nothing higher since BCH has 32 MB blocks.
interested to see some analysis of this process, also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.


i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?

All the usual places. Here's one: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h


If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.

For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.

And no. Lack of capitalization upon a security vulnerability does not invalidate the vulnerability.

that is not what i am looking for.

i know the "accusations", but being an actual vulnerability is something else.


you use the wrong term (revert) here whereas you should have said hard fork. and with that clarification it is not a SegWit-introduced vulnerability, it is a bitcoin vulnerability. miners can hard fork to any new chain they wanted and have the ability to spend any transaction output they want.

i know the words "anyonecanspend" sounds scary but in truth it is just what people are calling the new outputs. if you think miners can just flip a switch and "revert" to anything they want then you should not be trusting bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency that is build based on its technology (litecoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, ...) at all because miners can "revert" to anything they want. they can revert to prior P2SH and spend any output with a script in it, they can make 0x6a (OP_Return) outputs spendable and a lot more.
but in reality it won't happen, simply because when hard forking you need people to follow your fork otherwise it will be an altcoin. who would follow a chain that made their money spendable by others?

Oh I believe we already saw the real answer to that in practice in the past. Haha.


That is another argument altogether. But I respect your opinion, though if it is biased.


It was not as convincing as the demonstration of the UASF. Sorry.


But if no one ran non-mining nodes, the network would be centralized towards only the miners that the economic majority would follow. Would that be an incorrect statement?

It matters little if there are different competing clients, if at the end of the day the hashrate is just controlled by one guy, along with most nodes, and may it get actually used at-scale, the people running nodes (that are actually people and not Amazon botnets in china) would be kicked out from the network quickly.

Also from BCH's camp they often say BTC is centralized because "Core" dictates everything, and point at how they have different competing clients, when in Bitcoin you have a big array of other clients to choose from too. No one is aiming a gun at people to run Core as the most used client, they choose to.

You're arguing with a brick wall. If this guy isn't Craig Wright its someone desperately trying to get anybody to take him seriously.

I do not care, and "they" should be made aware that we will not accept anything they say as the "truth" just because they said it. But, I know I can be wrong but his ideas can also be wrong, or we might or could be both right.

I just found out these guys deleted all of their tweets and basically ragequited Mike Hernia style on Bitcoin, so the spam attack on Bcash never happened. Three possible scenarios:

1) They were paid by Roger Ver to ragequit. This made BCash dodge the bullet of being exposed, while using Bitpico's twitter clout to throw a bit more hate in "Bitcoin Core".
2) They were never going to do it. Since day one this was the planned outcome. Possibly bribed by Ver and co. They will come back as Bcash supporters (also compatible with 1))
3) They really did quit because the fucktards weren't able to sustain the bear market and got exposed as weak hands. They were counting on higher prices to fund the hashrate for the attack, miscalculated and ended up in loses not being able to do it, which made them ragequit.