Bitcoin Forum

BTU supporters refuse to acknowledge China mining centralization and that a few elite Chinese control majority of BTU hash. They seem to think this is what Satoshi wanted, Chinese centralized mining and control over Bitcoin. When did decentralization become centralized? They also have a fanatical belief in Core/Blockstream conspiracy theories such as forcing people to use LN. As if no other company can create a side-chain for off-chain transactions. They also believe ALL Core contributors; more than 100 people are all conspiring with Blockstream to centralize Bitcoin and usurp control for themselves, while ignoring the centralization already taking place in China. The Chinese already control most of the mining equipment production, the actual mining of Bitcoin and now possibly via BTU the development and direction of Bitcoin. BUT, BTU supporters don’t see a problem there, no conspiracy, just the conspiracy with Blockstream…

The conclusions I have drawn from these lunatics is that they would rather see Bitcoin burn than admit the flaws with BTU. Their hate for Core is such that they would rather give Bitcoin over to the Chinese and see it destroyed than find an equitable solution elsewhere. Their mentality is BTU or bust, as if no other solution to scaling can exist. The truth is, Bitcoin is probably doomed. With a few “elite” miners making the decisions for the majority. I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be different? Sounds a lot like every other system we have.

The scaling debate reminds me of how Trump and every republican gets elected in the US. Poor uneducated white voters vote them into office believing the lies told by these wealthy people with wealthier friends, “We know what’s best, trust us, we have your best interests at heart.” The same white voters have been told for decades by republicans that “liberal” “left” “Democrat” are bad words and nothing good comes from them. These same dumb white voters didn’t know that “Obamacare” was a demonizing term created by republicans to fool them about the ACA. They didn’t understand that Obamacare was the ACA and providing them free or low cost healthcare, which they liked. Now they are horrified the republicans they voted into office want to get rid of their healthcare.

The sheeple have been manipulated since the dawn of time by the elite to support ideas that goes against their own self-interests because of irrational hatred the elite create in the sheeple’s minds. Keep voting republicans into office, keep believing in the wealthy elite. They will make America (and Bitcoin) great again and your lives will improve, except it never does. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results - Albert Einstein

Same kind of situation with the scaling debate, minus the voting (the little guy doesn’t have a voice in Bitcoin). You can whisper, you can talk, you SCREAM at the top of your lungs but only the elite miners have a say in what happens, as designed apparently by Satoshi or at least that’s what BTU supporters will have you believe.

Mental illness is no joke. You cannot have a rational discussion with irrational people. Arguing is pointless. For further proof, visit /r/btc if you dare!

Note: Maybe not ALL BTU supporters are lunatics, some are paid shills and others maybe lacking basic reasoning skills?

Not sure if this is an essay or rant  ;D

Now do one on Blockstream supporters lol

So this BTU thing causes the bitcoin price to decrease. :(
I`ve never been vary familiar with all this block size,scaling,LN,blocktream shit,but it`s obvious that some people want to profit from destroying bitcoin and replacing it with some fake altcoin pretending to be btc.

Your whole write-up is good but there are just things that I would like to comment. The flaw that I have seen was the relation of BTU and core developers to the voters of America. That is quite a troublesome analogy, cryptocurrency is not politics thus its better if we stick to the current bitcoin issue than comparing it to the election mentality of the people. You have made a good point on taking up the bad side of Bitcoin Unlimited but the people behind it are not dumb and they are not the only ones who are trying to make bitcoin centralized but also the core developers. Both parties are doing it and thus nobody is going to let go of their pride and adopt a solution.

I do agree that it is rather bizarre that BU supporters talk a lot about decentralization, but they are centralizing a great deal of power in the hands of a few mining pool operators and major miners, and putting miners in control of protocol options like blocksize rather than the dev community with inputs from everyone. That's a mistake. Miners are not a neutral party in the bitcoin ecosystem, and putting them in charge disempowers everyone else.

The problem is politics have crept into Bitcoin and so has power centralizing in the hands of an elite few. I'm not advocating core but if I had to chose between them I would pick core over BTU any day. Personally, I'd rather see another solution everyone could get behind and the lead Devs not be affiliated with a company that could cause conflicts of interest.

Miners will never back a proposal that could cost them revenue in the future, nor should they as a for profit business. This is exactly why they should NOT determine what innovations make it into Bitcoin.

Funny,  :D

That none of you seem to realize,
that ALL PoW coins are SUBJECT to 51% Control by its miners,
Guess none of you ever bothered to read Satochi's WhitePaper on BTC.  ;)

Also interesting that you are all so stupid that you don't realize that segwit & LN gives Blockstream complete control of BTC
by allowing them the Power to LOCK every single BTC in place onchain where no onchain transactions could take place for those coins and deny the transactions fee to the miners, ergo forcing them out of business. (Which is a stated Goal of keeping all transactions offline, if you read the LN Whitepaper.)

But hell , as long as you make a few bucks who cares if you sell the Future generations down the river, by letting blockstream and the bankers control BTC.
I guess that is why they say , YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID!


 8)

FYI:
The above is why the miners will never activate segwit.
Segwit=> DeadWIT

And you think that PoS coins are amazing and flawless? What about "nothing at stake attack"? PoS is essentially flawed by this.

---

I guess that community/miners might start to regret now, that they ditched SegWit, we could have easy and safe upgrade.
Because of FUD caused by hard fork drama price of bitcoin is crumbling.

PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990


You can whine at me all day , and every community member can run a segwit node,
and guess what it won't matter because the miners are the only one with the 51% control to make the changes.
Maybe you should read Satochi & LN whitepapers so you won't be so stupid.  ;)


 8)

FYI:
Segwit /DeadWit needs 95% to activate.
BTU has 30% of mining support. (Segwit has less support than BTU now.)
100-30 = 70%  
Segwit has failed , and can never be activated. That is not FUD, That is MATH!!


FYI2:
BTC price was less than $500 in May of 2016, I guess you can't recognize a price bubble either.
BTU would fix BTC transactions capacity problem and lower those ever growing transactions fee, as of now it is pricing itself out of the markets.
IE:  What others are saying.

I am of the opinion that BTU will die a natural death very soon.Why would someone trust a centralized crypto as it defeat the very purpose of having a independent currency.
Fall in btc price is not due to BTU as some people like to believe.It is nothing new to bitcoin.

BTU is another coin so were is the problem?

in only one move we can fuck off all the chinese miner, is a good news guys.

Current dump on price seems to be a panic reaction due to FUD about bitcoin going to have hard fork created by bitcoin unlimited. BTU is just another alt and it may get listed in few trading platform as an alt but not as an bitcoin. ;D

Whoa, whoa I've been seeing a lot of BTU around and I have no clue what is it and what does it mean. From the OPs post, bitcoin is becoming centralized in China and the whole bitcoin is falling apart due to the elite controlling the bitcoin mining? Can someone explain it shortly? Thanks.

But damn, don't be so salty that Hillary/Bernie lost.

I concur, I think stalemate or a completely new proposal will win as I don't think either side is currently ready to compromise, and neither have the support currently to force through their version. It's impossible for segwit/ln to get 95% as it only takes one of the top ten pools to block. I suppose BU has an outside chance, but I don't see them doing anything until at least 75% are in favour that seems extremely unlikely and probably not even then.

It's already centralised, sorry to break it to you.

This is a very hot topic and is worth discussing at the present time. We need to give our own ideas, and learn the information. We need the right decision to develop bitcoin, I do not consider bitcoin core or bitcoin unlimit, what I need is its development. It has reached its peak and it needs to go up further, BTU appears to have a great influence on the BTC, the current value of the BTC severely reduced, it is difficult to imagine what will happen next. So I want to hear from you guys.

I've researched this extensively.  Nothing at Stake issue is real and a huge problem for any PoS to scale big imo. 

Certainly, I don't mind if someone decides to give me BUcoins for free. Whatever their price may be after the fork I'll sell them and increase my BTC stash.

knowing any dynamic proposition isnt going to activate unless majority..

leaving core to even become dynamic too or be the ones banning nodes to keep their minority alive.. your statement should also read as

"Certainly, I don't mind if someone decides to give me SWcoins for free. Whatever their price may be after the fork I'll sell them and increase my BTC stash."

This is not about Bitcoin Core or BU anymore... This is turning into a pissing contest to see who will be right. This whole thing started way before

BU were on the scene. All the craziness started with supposed censorship on /r/Bitcoin when XT were still the issue and it turned into something

more sinister. Even if Core came up with the perfect solution.... they will not get support from these people. This is being blown out of proportion

by some people paying shills to bad mouth Core.   ::)

A lot are paid off shills, some are miss lead and don't research things for themselves, others are just angry and support those who scream louder than they do.

Ultimately if you are willing to support a centralised idea controlled by 2 individuals who use social engineering and fear to drive their agenda, with bad code. You need to reassess how you see the world.

oh your talking about barry silbert and adam back..

It has never been. BU psychopaths just don't care about Bitcoin or BU success, or XT, or Classic, or whatever will come after BU is gone. They only wish Bitcoin Core to be destroyed. Things are really simple. Out of 100 core devs there are couple of devs that feel insulted that they are not among 5 core devs hired by Blockstream. Just imagine what will some people say if Blockstream hired more core devs?

BUcoin will die and become a marginal coin, but make no mistake, the impact on bitcoin's network effect will be severely damaged after this, which is what state-funded Jihan Wu and Roger Ver want if they aren't stupid enough to naively think Emergent Consensus and so on works.

This is a direct attack into bitcoin. Bitcoin chinese mining centralization was always a problem, we should have never allowed ASICs to happen. The only solution I see now is to change the PoW algo into something else that invalidates Jihan's ridiculous monopoly, but then again, who is to say new ASIC-like technologies will not arise causing the monopoly all over again?

PoS coins aren't safe as well, im not wasting time with those.

I'll be honest, I have no clue WTF you're talking about? Lock coins on the main chain so miners can't mine? Can you provide some proof? This sounds ridiculous.

Edit: BTW I'm against BTU for the stated reasons I have made, I don't care about the technicals, I care about the centralization in China. I am neutral towards Segwit, leaning towards being against it too and Core if they can't get their shit together. Honestly, I am against any small group getting control of Bitcoin and centralization anywhere.

Then we have a disagreement,

Here
PoS nothing at stake is just another lie made up by G.Maxwell to fool the stupid. (He is very good at tricking the below 115 IQs.)
I cover why it is a lie and a non issue for PoS coins
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

The above were 2 examples of how Gmaxwell Lie was supposed to work and I refuted it in both cases and went into detail why both were wrong.

So you have to explain to me why my analysis was incorrect or show another 3rd example of how the so called nothing at stake works.
Until then , sorry it is just Bullshit,
So after looking at my two links are you thinking it is one of those or do you have a 3rd scenario for me to lay waste to.  ;)

 8)

FYI:
One irritating thing all of you that believe the noting at stake lie, all reference a different way it works , there is no cohesion in your example.
No cohesion is a standard sign of a falsehood or a false belief.

Would love to read one for the Blockstream supporters LOL.  Anyway it is obvious that once we support one faction , we believe on its rule and more likely think that it is better and even accept facts give to us.  I think same applies to Blockstream supporters too.  I see no difference between the two LOL.  This is like pot calling the kettle black.

I think you misunderstood the problem of nothing at stake.  It is not a matter of good guy and bad guy.  It is a matter of not reaching agreement on the past (no consensus).

I take your example again:

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins


Jack makes block A and wins 1 coin.

Alice makes block B and also wins 1 coin.

Joe now makes block C (on top of A) and wins 5 coins in that chain ;
Joe also makes block D (on top of B) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Jake now makes block E (on top of C) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;
Jake also makes block F (on top of D) and wins 5 coins on that chain ;

Zoe now makes a block G (on top of E) and wins 5 coins ;
Zoe now makes a block H (on top of F) and wins 5 coins ;


....
 

What is now the good chain ?  A C E G or B D F H ?

There's no way to solve the riddle, until, 5000 blocks later, someone liking Jack and hating Alice, (Maybe Jack himself) doesn't add a block on chain 2.

Read the LN WhitePaper, You have to be able to understand it or you will be forever lost in this discussion.

Here is a link to a short reference on it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831643.msg18260156#msg18260156


FYI:
BTC core could have fixed the unconfirmed transaction problem by just increasing blocksize or a faster blockspeed.
Their failure to lead and Blockstream instead trying a hostile takeover over the entire network itself has caused the BTC internal conflict.
(Which BTU is Winning , because they are actually trying to fix BTC without a corrupt takeover of the network itself, that is why the majority of miners are supporting it.)

Well in that line of thought choosing core over BTU is also the kind of choice I have to make. Right now it is very clear that BU will be separated to bitcoin and will be creating their own version of bitcoin which is XBU or BTU. The safest thing to do is to stick to the original form of bitcoin and that is with the core developers. Possibly by the coming months we can already witness the separation between BTC and BTU.

Joe: 50  Jack: 10  Alice: 10
Jake: 50 coins ; Zoe 50 coins

Jack [10] block A  wins 1 coin  
Joe  [50] block C  wins 5 coin
Jake [50] block E  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50] block G wins 5 coins

Alice [10] block B  wins 1 coin.
Joe   [50]  block D  wins 5 coin
Jake [50]  block F  wins 5 coin
Zoe  [50]  block H wins 5 coins


Ok, I now know which example you believe.
You believe this one : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430)

1. You are assuming that almost every user is mining on multiple chains at the exact same time , so that there is an endless chain conflict.
    1st reason that is a lie:  Standard PoS wallets don't Multi-stake, you would have to code one yourself from scratch.
 
2.  Just to play devil's advocate, let's say this Multistake PoS Wallet does exist  
     By playing both sides of a chain, all you do is Negate your Staking Power!
     Lets say one Honest Guy [1] stakes Block I on Alice's chain , he determines the longest chain and it is him and him alone that determines the chain path.
     (This example assumes the impossible that Alice & Jack's Blocks were the exact same coin age & coin amount per block.)
        
3.  It is apparent the people that spread this nothing at stake myth, don't use PoS coins.
     Because if you did you would recognize , that even if the exact same amounts were in each block,
     The amounts are not the only factor , Time /Coin Age is a Factor, meaning if Jack's Block of coins was 10 seconds older than Alice, then Jack's Chain would have
     the higher CoinAge/Weight and be the chosen chain.  ;)
     Matching Amounts are easy to have , Matching Coin Age , matching down to the microsecond , let's just say that is Damn Impossible on a Consistent Basis,
     you have an easier time wining the lottery every week.
     So whichever honest user has the oldest created block will be the winner and that chain of blocks chosen.  ;)


Questions or does that explain another one of G.Maxwell's Lies.  :)

 8)    

Yes, of course.  What's wrong with it ?


The behaviour of a piece of software will of course not stop anyone from using another piece of software if that is more advantageous to him.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any consensus problem at all: "just use the right software" is not a trustless decentralized consensus mechanism.  

The reason why everybody HAS to stake on every chain it can, is that as long as both chains are in competition, you don't know which one will win, so the optimal strategy is to stake on both, to win with 100% certainty.  With PoW, this costs money, you can't, and you are betting on one or the other one (or dividing your influence).  But with PoS, you stake everywhere you can stake, of course.
 

Why would he forego his staking reward if ever it is the other chain that wins ?  If he receives both chains, why prefer one over the other ?  
  

What is 10 seconds more for Joe can be 10 seconds less for Jack, because of network propagation delays.  Even if they are "honest". Joe has to take into account that his preferred chain may lose against Jack's if it is propagated faster.

You see, it is not a matter of honesty.  It is a matter of not being able to reach consensus, because there are two equally valid histories, and you are now saying that their priority depends on the speed at which they propagate.  But that is not the same for all paths through a P2P network.  So the chain that is "winning" for you, is maybe losing for another part of the network *and there is locally no way to know who will win*.

There is more than one nothing at stake lie, which proves you did not even bother to read the 2 links, I placed. :P



If your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, it would have been included in the longest chain, not waiting for someone with barely any coins to determine it.
It is just stupid because IT NEGATES YOUR STAKING POWER TO DETERMINE THE LONGEST CHAIN!
And running a Multistaking wallet will increase the memory & CPU requirements and energy needed.
Exactly how much , no one can answer , because no one has written one to my knowledge, because it is a waste of time.
Smarter move is to increase the # of coins as that directly translates into your ability to be included.

 


I suggest you pick a PoS coin at least 3 years old and attempt to write a Multistaking wallet,
so you can learn 1st hand you are wasting your time.
Also when you are done , you can post the differences in hardware resources used verses a single wallet version.
Multistaker will require more resources, depending on the ram & cpu requirements.
But what you will find out at the end of the month is the single chain client makes just as much money as the multistaker while requiring less resources.
Also is your Multistaker going to be able to run on 2 forks or 4 forks or 8 forks at the same time.
Looking forward to watching you attempt it.  :D


  

The Block is Chosen by the CoinAGE not the amount of coins.
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

The Nothing at Stake Lie Completely Ignores this FACT!
Just because two users have the same amount of coins per block, does not mean the CoinAge will Match.
The CoinAge Factor is excluded because it destroys the LIE.

   

 8)

I honestly don't understand what this means.  There are different PoS mechanisms, but I was thinking of just any mechanism where "randomly" someone can stake, and nobody else, and that the probability of it to be you, is proportional to your stake ; I don't want to go into details of how this is done (there are different ways).  The idea was simply that at this point in chain and time, it was Joe's turn to stake.  And then Jack's turn to stake.  And then....


But you don't care about that "power to decide".  You only care about reaping in the reward.  We were thinking about otherwise "honest" stakers, that do not want to double spend or anything.  Just reap in staking rewards (minting).  You mint wherever you can, because that's why you are staking in the first place.  Not to impose any decision you don't care about.


This very very small "proof of work" doesn't compensate the possible loss of a minting reward if ever your chain doesn't win because of propagation delays in the network, or because of an orphaning 5000 blocks from now.


So your PoS is in fact PoW ?



If nobody is multistaking then 1) you cannot know and 2) then the consensus is just imposed by randomness (which is good), but you are not protected against multistaking.  That's the point.  As long as people only run official "random selection" staking algorithms, indeed, PoS will find a consensus.  But it is vulnerable to multistaking and having no possibility to come to consensus.  It's most probably because PoS is only used on rather small chains with not much at stake, that nobody has been implementing multi stake algorithms.


Of course, that is exactly the divergence of consensus that is the "nothing at stake" problem.  If, however, people are so gentle as to adhere all to a random selection algorithm and not multistake, then by definition, this divergence cannot happen.  That is similar to saying that if nobody is attempting a 51% attack on a PoW system, then the chain is secure with PoW.


Huh ?  But what if you have 2 identical blocks, where only one single transaction is different:
Block A: Mary has spend 10 coins that are 517 blocks old to Joe
Block B: Mary has spend the same 10 coins that are 571 blocks old to, Janice.

Block A and block B are identical except for this double spend.  (this is the ONLY case where consensus is necessary).

Now, Alice receives block A at 12:00:02 and mints block C on top of it.  However, it only gets to Joe at 12:01:00, but gets it at Jake at 12:00:30.
Alice receives block B at 12:00:08.

Bob receives block A at 12:00:09, but received block B at 12:00:05, and mints an IDENTICAL BLOCK D = C on top of it.  Bob gets it at Jake at 12:00:45 and at Joe at 12:00:45.

So now Jake receives Alice's chain before Bob's and Joe receives Bob's chain before Alice's.

So Jake will build block E identical to block F on top of Alice's chain
Joe will build block F identical on top of Bob's chain.

Everybody is honest here.  But at the end of the day, after I don't know how many identical blocks containing identical transactions, there will be a difference, orphaning one of both.  As long as all stakers include all the transactions in the common mem pool, their blocks are identical according to your criterium, and the double spend by Mary is not resolved by consensus on both prongs.


If the transactions are identical, yes.  And you stake for sake of the minting, not because you want to decide something.

If you look at the example, you used.
The coinage was strong enough that the blocks were included in both forks at the ~ same time, if the users say ZOE, had only staked on one chain,
she would have determined the longest chain. Not been waiting for someone else to come along and determine it.
PoS staking is not random , at least not ZEIT, it is determined by the mathematical calculations of a coin age.
Age of a Block is in flux , the more it ages the Stronger it becomes.
So you can have a block with 10 coins that is 20 days old, has a coin age of 200
and another block with 190 coins that is only 1 day old, with a coin age of 190
The Block with only 10 coins will stake before the block of 190 coins, because it have a higher coin age.
Whenever a block stakes , it resets the time to 0 and starts over.





Your block was strong enough to stake on both forks, you would get the exact same reward if you only stake on only one fork, because you actually made one fork stronger than the other. Because 1 fork will be canceled out.





Minting reward based on % automatically compensates you for any difference in time.
Meaning if you take longer to stake, your stake amount will be a little higher.
(This is only not true for fixed rate rewards.)





What I am saying to you is PoS coins do have growing hardware requirements over time.
This gets ignored, but many coins over 3 years old require 2 gig or more of ram just for the client running only 1 mempool, and they use CPU % for every block they are trying to stake. So if you multiply the number of forks you multiply the mempools and Blocks and maybe even the blockchain data you have to keep active, this may be a multiple of the # of forks you are running. So 2 forks double your requirements and 3 forks could triple. Unknown as no one has written one yet how much memory or cpu consolidation is possible if any.
Example: One guy was trying to run just 3 Different PoS coins in 1 app, all a few years old, the memory requirements were such a problem, he never even released it.
So just because a $10,000 asics is not needed, does not mean more resources will not be required.





Staking is not a Random Act, it is based on a Mathematical Formula for CoinAge.
Number of coins and Age of coins in the block matter more than anything else.



I already answered that type of scenario ,
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990)





Dino, PoS coins have a blockspeed that adjusts the difficulty to maintain only 1 block at a certain time interval.
I suggest you watch some of the PoS coin Block Explorers, if you want personal confirmation.
Achieving the same coinage with the exact same amount of coins is pretty impossible , because the odds of staking 2 blocks with the same amount of coins at the exact same time is immense.
And if they do , odds are 1 will orphan, (the younger one).

 8)

But that is entirely wrong !
The "bad guy" can most of the time not stake directly (it is not his turn to stake).  So this "third block only on the second chain by the bad buy" can come maybe only 500 blocks later, when both chains have been accumulating identical blocks for all this time.

I don't see why you think it is impossible.  Each staker will empty the (identical) mem pool in his block he is staking.  And especially when there is multistaking, all transactions will end up in both chains, and hence add identical amounts of coin-lost-days in both prongs.  Yes, sometimes one will be in advance to the other, but within an error margin that multistakers are not going to waste, because somewhere else on the network, a stronger chain may be propagating that they didn't receive yet.

Dino, 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
If I hold a block with a very large amount of coins and let it reach an extremely high coin age, I can pretty much stake that block whenever I feel like it.
Because the staking process is not Random, like you think it is. (But by Doing so I lose compound interest.)

Multistakers are not going to have the advantages you think they are,
They are going to tie up more Memory & CPU & more bandwidth trying to game the system, for exactly the same reward if they had just used a standard client.
The Nothing at Stake Lie, is really quite pathetic.

If someone tried a double spend if a person waits the required confirmations, they will know their transaction was not included, so that is a non issue.
This holds true for PoS or PoW
Longest chain with the most difficulty wins , just wait the recommend # of confirmations and all zero confirmation attacks fail.


 8)

This topic has been brought up every day and from the information that I gathered and read, both parties are not ready to make any compromise and they just wanted to drag this issue to who knows when. With the way that they are acting right now, they are not providing any solution at all. They are just making things worse. I also can't believe that BTU are trying to make BTC centralized while badmouthing the core dev team.

I debated many people a few years ago about PoS and NaS. 

NaS never been solved, sorry.  In practical terms might be hard to execute but theoretically a risk.

You never Debated me,  there is nothing to solve.
Here are my responses again,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

In theory a black hole might appear in your living room, I doubt that keeps you from using your living room.  :)
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/011/275/i235/supermassive-black-hole-110216.jpg?1311990663


 8)


FYI:
The fact is if someone pissed off the combined 67% of Chinese Mining Pools,
they could 51% attack the BTC chain all day, and that is not theory, but the reality we live in.

well if you want to turn this into a NaS thread, i'll play along until I get bored.

here's a snippet of your argument:


This is like saying having 2 raffle tickets negates each other since you can only win once.  (You still have twice as many
chances to win as the guy with one raffle ticket.)

IOW, when you attempt to stake on multiple forks, you're not negating your own staking power, you're simply giving yourself
more opportunities to be on the winning chain.   

I'm not reading through all that shit, if you can't quote the relevant parts here don't bring it up. Please provide proof to your arguments, go look it up is a bullshit answer.

See that is the other issue why only 2 forks, every fork gives additions forks.
Each fork would hold the opportunity for another fork.
Like so
Fork
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384
32768

That is only 15 blocks, and you guys think that won't draw more resources.   :D

Fact of the matter it is alot easier to just place all of my coins in 1 block and stake the one block , it proof of hash will stop any coins from overwriting it.
proofhash< coinage * target

 8)

Dumbass that link was the short version, go play with your Legos.
Sorry you have proven yourself too stupid too comprehend.   :P


 8)

Stop spreading misinformation about Chinese mining centralization. Mining is spread over the whole world, estimated 100.000 small miners included. If you look at Antpool pool servers, half of the hashrate going from China, the other half from USA. If you mean centralization of ASIC production, then we should replace all computers as well because all computer component production is centralized as well. The only attack on Bitcoin is the one comming from the ones who argue to change Bitcoin PoW.

If we think better about the consequences of BTU, we would realize the best is not to activate it, here is an article about possible consequences called A fork in the road, by Vinny Lingham

Satoshi had no block limit in the initial version and was later talking about increasing block limit gradually on this very forum. Bitcoin allowing bigger blocks isn't exactly "a new altcoin".

Man , are you serious?

1. He is Segwit's Bitch because he is frighten of a hard fork

Put on your Big Boy Pants, and get ready for BTU.


Segwit supporters have resorted to Begging, Sad , Pathetic and Lame.

Maybe if he squeezes out a tear , because his jammies don't fit.

 8)

Right... You can use computational power to do this, but it is exponentially cheaper than mining, totally outcompeting those who play the game honestly.  If taken to extremes, and everyone starts throwing massive computing power to game the system, then your supposed PoS system turns into PoW indirectly, which kind of defeats the point of PoS in the first place.

With your low IQ I know you may have a hard time understanding this so I will put this into words your pea brain may be able to comprehend...

Listen up dipshit, back your shit up or get the fuck out.

I'm not doing your work for you. You want to win people over to your side, stop being an asshole and make compelling arguments with evidence not bullshit speculations or whatever it is you're trying to say. Being an asshole and name calling is not going to win you more supporters. However, If that is how you want to proceed I can oblige you numbnuts.


Antpool is ran by Jihan Wu who also runs Bitmain, both from China. I don't care if Antpool has a mine set up on the moon, its still centralized in China. Just because some mining equipment may be hosted outside of China does not mean its decentralized, the people still behind it are from China. How the hell can you defend that as decentralized? You fucking shills are something else  ::)

It's an odd situation.

OK, one can admit that the pools are heavily centralised and the miners have exceptionally sway.

Yet, one must also surely admit it is odd that BU is essentially developed by Stone, a guy with about 100 twitter followers, and most of the discussion on its forum is pretty light.

You'd think with the Chinese money - and other sources... - they could hire 10 real world devs?

No, because they don't need it.  Just any code that counters segwit is good enough.  They will never activate it.
That said, measuring people's capacity to modify a code by the number of Twitter followers is doubtful.  ;)

Heh on the last point. I suppose what I mean is they could have looked around for someone high end or even outside Bitcoin but with exceptional skill for the job.

The code must not work.  Well, it must work like the old core code, and say it is "BU".  That's all that it must do.  There doesn't need to be any really working BU code inside.  Just old core code, that doesn't signal that way.

All cry BTC is decentralized but is HIGH centralized in mining and any changes have to go truth that centralized miners Chinese government :D cool.
Allso ASICs bring new era of centralization and monopoly on market.
THey called Asics "security" now those Asics are putting gun on users head.
Lucky users have place to go in alts which are evolving.

If some morons believe that high hash rate makes BTC price are so DUMP or Retarded
BTC price rise because there is USER demand for BTC and price attract new miners.
If price was dictated by miners that will never fall down and why have like 2 years corrections then.
Some miners logic is mind blowing.

I doubt that Roger Ver is supporting the Chinese government though... :D

Eventually Bitcoin will need to change the PoW algo to an ASIC-resistant one. People like Jihan are simply too dangerous to the space once they own the amount of hash power he does.

Miners should get 3-4 years of notice before this happens however.

I would highly recommend that if you are against BU, pull out of all the exchanges that support it. Don't give them the business. For example Hashnest, and the Antpool. They are heavy supporters of BU, and have gone as far as to call core supporters crazy. Fuck that Chi*k

I know I am not a normal person.

I do support BU. Am I a lunatic?

Well there are several indications that I might be.

I'm a heterosexual male with a masculine name yet I like to be called Alice.

I would rather look for frogs and snakes than mingle with people, often ending up covered in snake musk with mud around my pant legs, and then wonder why the chicks I do try to mingle with avoid me.

I get stuck on a concept, not as in can't understand it, but can't stop thinking about it to save my life.

So yes, I suppose many would classify me as a lunatic.

That doesn't mean I shouldn't have a voice or that my opinion is worthless. Only bigots thinks that way.

If BU forks the network there will be no coming back to main chain later, they will lose their grip if stop mining on main chain for more than 10 minutes.

Everything is cheaper than ASICS Mining, the N@S Lie states that no addition resources will be required.
Clearly you can see the CPU increased requirement, you are forgetting the Memory Ram Requirements, may increase by the factor of the number of Forks.
All of those will draw more energy. Your Costs will increase for absolutely no reason with No real Increase in Rewards.

Your Reward rate will be the same whether you multistake or not,  the block of coins will then deactivate until it reaches minimum stake age.
The Fact is , if you are able to stake on multiple forks, you would have staked on the main fork and added to its difficulty without Negating it by multistaking, and all of the rest of the multistaking nonsense is a waste of time.

The N@S lie has been out for a few years , where are the multistaking clients?
There are'nt any, because they don't really give you the advantages you think they do.
Just another one of G.Maxwell lies,
The Nothing at Stake Lie
or
The BTC can't increase transaction capacity without segwit Lie

Both are lies, when you look at them closely.

 8)

FYI:
If the Nothing at Stake Lie were True ,
Why isn't G.Maxwell crushing Blackcoin, or Diamond or Navcoin, by exploiting the N@S, the reason is he can't because he lied!    :P

Hmm,
that is not how it works.

When BTU get 55% or higher , after they maintain that for ~2 weeks, Sometime in the next two weeks (this is when you need to update to BTU or get left behind),they will release a  >1 mb block, Core clients will not recognize that block and then fork off, while BTU continues on with a higher Hash rate and finding blocks faster, shortly after that >1mb block , a updated BTU wallet will be released with a Hard coded checkpoint that forever denies any reorgs before that larger block.
This means even if all of BTU shut down , Core is Forever Locked out of the BTC Blockchain, unless they update to BTU Code accepting larger blocks.
Only then can they renter the Bitcoin blockchain.

 8)

I support BU and I think it's the best choice for the network.
Also happy to see how weak hands dumped BTC :D You will be buying back BTC for 1500$ and BTU for 2000$ in few months.

Why are you so upset? Let them fuck off as soon as possible along with their companies. Let them mine their own shitcoin. Nobody with a brain will buy their product anyway. Without a consumerbase they won't be able to survive.  If they are so much cancer, they better leave us asap. I say, let's support BU, sooner we dump them, better it is.

Hmm, it is now supported by many BTU'S most exchange trusted or already established since long. But it's also not necessarily generate or deliver the best for the future, for all the things that exist in the exchange depends on the devotees, if indeed BTU realized and only have smaller audiences of the future then bitcoin will also only and it will not give effect on prices and the growth of the bitcoin
 

Could you both stop the insults, you do a disservice to both your causes. Kiklo, if didn't care why do you keep responding? Based on all the stuff going on in this forum and reddit, I think the best coarse of action is do nothing until a true consensus can be reached between the sides.

I don't care what he believes, but if anyone insults me, I will trade insults until they collapse from physical exhaustion, if they continue.
In the real world one of us would have already beat the other senseless and the discussion would have been over.  ;)
Plus others can gleam insight from the links, I posted. But like I said , I am done with conversing with him, if he is done conversing with me.

 8)

Please avoid getting into a heavy prolongated slagfest. It only results in the mods exercising the use of their heavy hand.

I’ll take the high road; we can agree to disagree.

I’ll ask you nicely to go away and stop posting in my thread, thanks.

Everything in the universe takes energy, lol.  The point is is doesn't take MUCH energy.  You're missing the forest for the trees.

As to why it hasn't been exploited, i think it was -- maybe luke jr. or someone attacked a PoS coin and caused a huge re-org,
but i'd have to look that up.


 

Ever heard of Bilderberg group you stupid fuck?

Are you addressing the OP or the last poster (me) ?

BUcoin is dead. Nobody will use inferior software commanded by a mining cartel when you got world class coders working in Core with a new non-centralized mining algo.

Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.

lol
core are getting desparate to force segwit.
1. take nodes vote away
2. take pools vote away
3. give full control to core.

wak up to your own hypocrisy. if only one implementation (core) is running.. then there is no decentralisation.

core need to man up and realise
if they know nodes vote wont activate segwit(thus needing to bypass node vote by going soft) they know users dont want it
if they know pools vote wont activate (thus needing to blackmail with PoW change) they know pools dont want it

they should just instead of bribe(fee discount), or tweaking the elections(going soft),or blackmail(PoW algo change) they should just try something different the community will accept

Then why is Windows still so popular?

What are devs loosing if they make something wrong? Fame.
What are miners loosing? Everything.

Miners are not neutral. Miners which invested in Asics are the only party of the system which looses everything in case of a failure. Devs keep their skills, investors and exchanges trade altcoins, I, as a bitcoin journalist write about other cryptocurrencies. But Bitcoin-Asic miners keep nothing. If there is one entity in bitcoin I trust to act responsible for the system, than it are miners. This is the basic incentive structure of Bitcoin: everyone can make profit by acting evil except the miners. They just loose money.

If you want to go on crusade against the miners, which are the most important defining invention of Bitcoin - I'm ok. If there is one truth in Bitcoin than that you are poised to loose the fight. If this breaks Bitcoin for you, it was broken since the beginning, but you just didn't realize because you never really thought about it.

It is a new branch of Bitcoin though and should be regarded as separate.  When people gain an equal amount of BU coin to their Bitcoin, that'll be against their will, whereas they chose before to hold Bitcoin.  That's absolutely fine, but it should be obvious to people that these are two different coins and the one that they chose to hold is the original Bitcoin, therefore the new coin should be regarded as an alt as it is a newly created coin.

Nonsense. Mining is centralized and they will be able to unilaterally change parameters at will with BUcoin. They are jeopardizing bitcoin development by "do this, or else meet my hashrate". Ultimately they are easily replaceable, devs with years of experience in the field aren't. Cooperate or enjoy mining an altcoin.




Window is not a cryptocurrency, our wealth is not on the line.

you argue
but then slap your own argument down with
so which is it.

---

dynamics has the hard consensus of nodes and pools. which means NODES can vote against pools.

its CORE that have bypassed nodes consent(going soft).
i think your more angry at pools because of something that core actually caused. but not willing to admit a choice core made by going soft that backfired.
you wont admit core went wrong by going soft and giving pools the only vote because you want to remain ademant that core are kings and gods.

your also thinking that devs are immortal and will be around for the next 100 years and bitcoin cannot survive without your special immortant team of kings.

wake up to your own fairy tale your clinging onto

devs do come and go, devs do switch teams.
dvs move onto different projects all the time.. so devoting your desire towards a dev, instead of the longevity of whats right for bitcoin and the community is your own failure

Here you go again.  If pools want A, and they have a serious $$$ stake in A, and the currently active nodes want B, what stops pools to fire up 3 times more nodes voting A for a tiny fraction of $$$ ?

Did you still not understand that proof of work was invented to avoid vote by node, because the above Sybil attack is far too easy ?

And don't confuse users (people exchanging coins for value in the market)  with nodes again...

^ this.

nodes are simply relays, they don't have much power.

users have economic power, which trumps everything.

In the event of a split, nodes won't be the factor because if there is any ambiguity, SPV will check some reference block, and
users will stay on the chain they want to stay on.

because that centralised mindset is just handing a hotpotato around nodes itself own...

not the nodes of merchants who have orphaned that block.
not the nodes of users who have orphaned that block.

pools can sybil themselves all they like.. end result is they are just playing with themselves in their own room.. while the rest of the network are getting good blocks from the other 19 pools that are following rules acceptable to the community.


bitcoin doesnt just have one layer of protection. it has atleast 10.
nodes, coin holders that dont run nodes, and pools.. work in unison of consensus (symbiotic relationship of consent) to agree on a set of rules.
EG a low node count cannot change what pools accept
EG a low pool count cannot change what node accept
a low node or low pool count cannot change what coin holders accept

real consensus is about majority of the community

your thinking too 2 dimensionally about 1 security feature and expressing its flaw.
but your not seeing the bigger 3 dimensional overview of the other security features

P.S stop thinking that nodes are not users. because your missing the big picture

Indeed, franky1 is AGAIN confusing both.

Of course, users use nodes.  But users market weight is not proportional to the NUMBER OF NODES.

A big exchange has one single node, but has a bloody heavy market weight.  I'm running a node too, and my market weight is essentially zero.  The 5 times a year I buy something with bitcoin is entirely negligible.  Do you really think that my node should count as much as a big exchange's node ?  Do you think that my node is as heavy as the Winkelvoss brothers' node they may use ?

There are about 4000 bitcoin nodes.  My weight is 1/4000 of "nodes".  I don't control $5 million dollars of bitcoin (at all - I'm only using it as a currency, and very rarely so).  I'm maybe even going to set up a second node, for the fun of it.  Do you think that my vote should count twice ?

THAT is the reason why proof of work is used as a consensus "voting" system, and not "proof of node".

Users only need ONE single node to connect their wallets to. 

My current thoughts on this matter are:

1. Mining nodes = blockchain builders and source of new coins
2. Business nodes = coin utility enablers by supplying goods or services
3. User nodes = source of economic activity by moving coins

1 + 2 are the nodes that in consensus dictate the protocol. 3 either follow or become unsynced. May as well become SPV wallets in the long run.

Thats my two sats for now, but don't worry - it won't confirm as its not worthy of inclusion due to the transaction fee.