|
Title: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: KingScorpio on June 07, 2018, 02:13:38 PM The systematic (POW) doom, the inevitable emergence of a POW monster in the cryptoindustry, and bitcoins doom to become oligarchic
It is as Karl Marx described it, that in a national economy the big established players all tend to grow in power and size into a monopoly, and it is as we know it from the equally named board game "Monopoly" (picture) the player that owns a big share, of the total size early over time grows automaticallly bigger and bigger, creating ultimately a plutocratic society that creates not as many winners as possible but that seeks to create as many loosers as possible for the benefit and power of monopolistic and plutocratic or oligarchic few. That society might then be vastly influenced by those big players, media, legislation, elections etc. nothing published really matters anymore as the strings are pulled by forces that grew with the system and are now ruling it. Can this also happen for cryptocurrencies or more specific POW systems? Yes it is likely to happen and it is already observable, lets start: Tendencies to manipulate the media: I wrote an article about the systematic pump and dump scemes and the "bull calls" that are being issued now in the american cryptomedia (https://www.ccn.com/bullish-call-bitmex-chief-predicts-50000-btc-by-year-end) but it also reveals of a tendency to create vast and big influencing associations. Thinking that to the end, it is logically to understand that associations regarding hashpower in the worlds total POW system will be created out of interests to achieve certain economic goals, similar like caribbean pirates the worlds pow system might get its miner associations, which could hide their secretive coordinating core somewhere unknown and far away from legislation and police in an offshore sector. Such a secretive hashpower coordinating association will then for their reasons behave like a cancer, trying to feast on the smaller POW coins first, then grow in size so it can attack later the bigger ones. The profits from 51% attacks might even be a secondary goal, that delivers the profit, but the true goal being the destruction of trust which that particular POW system had in the first place. Take Verge as an example which lost a lot of trust and confidence after a 51% attack. What would that mean for the future of the cryptoindustry and the POW concepts like Bitcoin itself? It would mean that a honorable POS system would get a chance to regain popularity again, take for example the new cryptocurrency index: stakingrewards (https://www.stakingrewards.com/) which lists POS token only. it might be a beginning of a trend to drop the pow concept as its becoming like a wild west. additionaly the mining pools and leaked or even open associations like shown in their various lamo meeting events, might sooner or later be seen like a the same dragon the people saw in the banking cartels, and then supported them, creating the hype price of Bitcoin, that is now demerging. Discussing this issue in Bitcointalk.org, revealed even deeper issues of the systematic We brought and asked for that issue in Bitcointalk, and there we were answered that "Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain." and "This research proven game theory and economic fact becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward." Our Fazit: The POW concept will get its huge pool shark that will haunt it, thats unavoidable and Bitcoin marketed as decentral will become central, but a quite low quality unpopular cryptocurrency that will stand for its unpopular ressource waste, caused by its core association of miners, bitcoin isn't made for the longterm, and its even more not made to enrich the collective. It is a zero sum game of its miner cartel against everyone else, using the mass media, and the illusion of decentrality. with thanks to: anunymint Source (https://www.cryptoproductivity.com/single-post/2018/06/07/The-Systematic-POW-doom-and-the-inevitable-emergence-of-a-POW-Monster-in-the-Cryptoindustry) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: ir.hn on June 07, 2018, 06:58:05 PM Yes. Every system is doomed to centralized the only question is how long it will last. US constitution held it off for a hundred years perhaps and look at the success it brought. Shoot for 200 years of limited centralization whenever you design a system. Bitcoin was a good start but proof of work needs to be improved and many algorithms are achieving various levels of success.
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Zirnitra on June 07, 2018, 07:12:28 PM Although I would agree with everything being said about PoW is disagree with this approach of black and white (centralized and decentralized). No one ever heard of so-called semi-decentralized or as some refer them as consortium blockchains?
Just like in nature no extreme opposites will survive. Centralised projects will be abandoned by public awareness, decentralized by institutional market players leaving only some sort of consensus to be done, the one that suits both institutions and commoners. One doesn`t need to be a clairvoyant to foresee developments towards this direction. I hope this remark was of some good use to anyone interested in this topic read. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 07, 2018, 07:18:18 PM Perceptive historians recognize that great powers go through a cycle of growth, stability, maturity and decline.
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: KingScorpio on June 07, 2018, 09:07:44 PM Perceptive historians recognize that great powers go through a cycle of growth, stability, maturity and decline. do you realy think this way? i would rather say power change its form and how it looks, compare the roman empire, with the european colonial empires, europe from beeing an empire -> towards housing imperial centers, rome officially collapsed and declined but population grew economy continued to grow and is now bigger than ever before, same is with china and its empire, its gone, but china became even bigger and more powerful also economically richer, although unequality remainded if the central banking cartels in the west disappear, society might flourish much more, the banksters the billionaires, the warren buffets and the oligarchs will call and propagate this as the end of the usa or the end of the west, Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: KingScorpio on June 07, 2018, 09:19:06 PM Actually Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain. This research proven game theory and economic fact (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg39515634#msg39515634) becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward. The article cited in the OP does not give you this information. No one ever heard of so-called semi-decentralized or as some refer them as consortium blockchains? Recommended reading to correct the apparent lack of depth in your technological understanding of this issue: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale (non-censored link is: https://busy.org/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale) Read all the comments below the blog text. ok upgraded the article 1 merit for anunymint and his nice help check article under https://www.cryptoproductivity.com/single-post/2018/06/07/The-Systematic-POW-doom-and-the-inevitable-emergence-of-a-POW-Monster-in-the-Cryptoindustry i will now add the issue with the mass media which i wrote also in a seperate article and prepared it. i think i will write more often helpful articles around the economy and reward my merit here for the good helpers those articles then give important insight regards Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: KingScorpio on June 07, 2018, 10:34:08 PM Ty. Please fix the “source” link in the OP. It is a broken link. I will delete this post after you fix it. thx for your help, next article i write is about systematic media corruption, Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 07, 2018, 11:14:16 PM do you realy think this way? i would rather say power change its form and how it looks, compare the roman empire, with the european colonial empires, europe from beeing an empire -> towards housing imperial centers, rome officially collapsed and declined but population grew economy continued to grow and is now bigger than ever before, same is with china and its empire, its gone, but china became even bigger and more powerful also economically richer, although unequality remainded if the central banking cartels in the west disappear, society might flourish much more, the banksters the billionaires, the warren buffets and the oligarchs will call and propagate this as the end of the usa or the end of the west, Egypt was big and powerful, Greek was big and powerful, Phoenician was big and powerful, Rome caput mundi, but now Rome have no power, France was big Spain was big Europe have a little power compared to the past, Japan was the most advanced country in electronics, China is big and powerful now, but as any other population in the history they will become victim of their power. Colombian cocaine cartel now have a lot of concurrency from peru, bolivia, brazil and china Motorola was big Nokia was big IBM was big Altavista was big Lycos was big Microsoft was big deepbit was big cex was big bfl was the first asic manufacturer cointerra was big knc was big bitfury was big bitmain gained his power with their antminer S5, they was nothing before and will be nothing in the future. New manufacturer are already coming up eating bitmain resources. I'm not so updated with the latest pos evolution, but from what I can understand, there is no way to prevent a staker to validate blocks on infinite parallels chains so it is a solution to nothing. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 07, 2018, 11:31:02 PM Most coins have already been mined, current and future mining operations will never be able to amass (crypto)capital in the self-devouring vision of capitalism that Marx brought into the world. And due to the ever shrinking size of the block reward the capital of these "oligarchs" will always be dwarved by the coins mined by hobbyists using their GPUs or even CPUs. Mining may become ever more industrialized, but the initial coin distribution worked surprisingly well, despite or rather because Bitcoin flew under the radar for so long.
As far as 51% attacks are concerned -- Bitcoin is lucky to be the largest coin using SHA256 and in a weird turn of events, ASICs may actually be what keeps Bitcoin relatively safe from miner associations as described by OP. Given the amount of GPU based hashpower that is currently distributed amongst various alts, things would indeed look grim if Bitcoin were still a viable target for GPU miners. That being said, I'm actually surprised how few attacks actually take place. Many alts could be pretty much eradicated if a large enough miner would decide to do so. Heck, even Bitcoin Cash, despite being one of the top 5 coins in terms of market cap, could be wiped out at will, just because it shares its PoW scheme with a much larger counterpart (ie. Bitcoin). PoS does have the advantage of not being vulnerable to what I would call drive-by 51% attacks. The question of fair distribution is unlikely to be solved by PoS though. Matter of fact it's pretty much built upon the principle of gaining capital merely by owning capital. [...] deepbit was big cex was big bfl was the first asic manufacturer cointerra was big knc was big bitfury was big [...] BFL was the first to announce; Avalon was first to deliver[1]. They beat BFL by what turned out to be the longest 14 days ever. Also you forgot to mention ASICMiner. RIP friedcat :( (technically friedcat is probably still alive, but he pretty much disappeared into thin air) [1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/avalon-ships-bitcoins-first-consumer-asics-1358905223/ Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 08, 2018, 02:27:12 AM Most coins have already been mined, current and future mining operations will never be able to amass (crypto)capital in the self-devouring vision of capitalism that Marx brought into the world. Incorrect. Please do not spread incorrect information to the n00bs. Sir, you have a transactions fee tragedy-of-the-commons elephant standing in your living room and presumably do not even see it. Can you please open your eyes? In terms of currency issuance, most coins already have been mined, that is a fact. (referring to Bitcoin, of course) Obviously I misunderstood your argument though. So what you are saying is, that in the long run, an oligarchy of miners will amass the majority of bitcoins through transaction fees? Meaning that even old stashes from the pre-ASIC days will trickle up towards miners? That's a very interesting line of thinking. I doubt that the shift from block subsidies towards transaction fees alone will redistribute wealth in any meaningful way though. Bitcoin would become unusuable long before transaction fees reach such levels. People would simply switch to different means of payment. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and does not and will never have a monopoly on money. Thus "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will likely be too small to have much impact on wealth redistribution towards miners. The theory about how relying on transaction fees only will destabilize the network due to a shift in incentives due to higher payout variance is quite interesting as well. In practice the fundamental assumption of high payout variance will likely not hold though. The report itself acknowledges that Bitcoin running at or close to capacity decreases variance [1]. Assuming Bitcoin gaining popularity, this will likely be the case. In the case of Bitcoin not running at capacity, "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will be even less. [1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/ So the bottom line is that proof-of-work was designed to become fully centralized (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4266048.40#msg39054129). See also the Decentralized section of @anonymint’s latest blog (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers). Conjecture. And that doesn’t even include the other possible ways the miners might steal all your tokens if you donated them to “pay to anyone” by using the SegWit trojan horse transaction format. The only way to steal P2SH SegWit transactions is by rolling back via a hard fork. Good luck with that. And due to the ever shrinking size of the block reward the capital of these "oligarchs" will always be dwarved by the coins mined by hobbyists using their GPUs or even CPUs. Incorrect for the reason above and for the reason that you admitted below which is that these altcoins have nearly no security and thus very low real value. I stated my case regarding transaction fees resulting in unproportional wealth distribution from hobbyists miners of the old guard towards current industrial mining operations above. In regards to alt coins have little security and thus very low real value... I fully agree with you, but am not sure what this has to do with the way Bitcoin used to be mined. but the initial coin distribution worked surprisingly well, despite or rather because Bitcoin flew under the radar for so long. Incorrect. The Zionists outflanked you. You’ve been duped by your overconfidence and because you did not dig deep enough into the technological details. What if I told you that I am a Zionist? Seriously though. That the largest part of Bitcoin's initial money supply went mostly to hobbyists and small scale operations is a historical fact. You can't rewrite history by making theories about future distributions. As far as 51% attacks are concerned -- Bitcoin is lucky to be the largest coin using SHA256 and in a weird turn of events, ASICs may actually be what keeps Bitcoin relatively safe from miner associations as described by OP. Given the amount of GPU based hashpower that is currently distributed amongst various alts, things would indeed look grim if Bitcoin were still a viable target for GPU miners. That being said, I'm actually surprised how few attacks actually take place. Many alts could be pretty much eradicated if a large enough miner would decide to do so. Heck, even Bitcoin Cash, despite being one of the top 5 coins in terms of market cap, could be wiped out at will, just because it shares its PoW scheme with a much larger counterpart (ie. Bitcoin). The miner associations are the oligarchy that MUST control Bitcoin else it becomes incentives incompatible. Are you ignoring the link I provided (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg39515634#msg39515634)? I overlooked it initially. I think I covered at least part of it above. Not all of it did seem relevant to the current discussion to me though. That might be because it's getting late in my timezone however. Feel free to point out concrete arguments that I left unaddressed. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: mu_enrico on June 08, 2018, 02:31:20 AM I understand that POW will lead to an oligopoly (and maybe a monopoly), but what's with this statement "It would mean that an honorable POS system would get a chance to regain popularity again?" From what I know, POS is inferior to POW and has more security issues?
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 08, 2018, 12:15:02 PM So what you are saying is, that in the long run, an oligarchy of miners will amass the majority of bitcoins through transaction fees? Meaning that even old stashes from the pre-ASIC days will trickle up towards miners? That's a very interesting line of thinking. I doubt that the shift from block subsidies towards transaction fees alone will redistribute wealth in any meaningful way though. Bitcoin would become unusuable long before transaction fees reach such levels. People would simply switch to different means of payment. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and does not and will never have a monopoly on money. Thus "the maximum transaction fees that the market can bear" will likely be too small to have much impact on wealth redistribution towards miners. Your (IMHO incorrect) rebuttal can also be characterized as: Claiming an argument to be myopic while not addressing its content is not very productive. Claiming that "[Satoshi] (intentionally) left proof-of-work mining vulnerable" [1], assuming both intent and future outcome is conjecture. Heck, even the statement that "Satoshi designed Bitcoin addresses to be secure against quantum computing by wrapping them in a hash." is nothing more than retroactive attribution. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4266048.40#msg39054129 Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers) (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog). If the block size remains 1MB as Satoshi intended, then transaction fees must rise to by my calculations well above $50,000 per transaction when Bitcoin rises as a global reserve currency that it was intended to be. Bitcoin was not designed for our use. It is designed to be used for settlements between large banks, central banks, and maybe Lightning Networks Mt.Box hubs. The 1MB blocksize limit was introduced for both technical and security reasons. Satoshi himself actually did consider increasing the blocksize further down the road: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 Whether Bitcoin was intended as transactional or as reserve currency, is a question of both speculative and irrelevant nature. How the future will look like in practice, is the only thing that matters. In my personal opinion the jury on whether Bitcoin will end up as a transactional or a reserve currency is still out and will largely depend on how well current and future scaling approaches will fare in the real world. Please link me to your calculations of USD 50,000,- per Bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin has a monopoly on being the crypto reserve currency. Everyone who makes an altcoin is trying to take their profits into BTC or fiat, not into more altcoin units. BTC is the common denominator unit-of-account that everyone measures their results with. Bitcoin has no monopoly on money though. The rest I agree with. At least it seems to apply for the majority of people that they measure their trading success in either BTC or fiat. You will still be able to transact in BTC units-of-account with very low fees by using an exchange or Mt. Box hub. As you know, with Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLC) it's possible to ensure these won’t be fractional reserves (if users are diligent). Yet Lightning Networks hubs and exchanges will lack some degrees-of-freedom that a transactional altcoin might have. So there will still be a market for a better altcoin, but this will never displace Bitcoin as the reserve currency because of Gresham’s Law and the inertia of the Schelling point. That Bitcoin is going out-of-circulation is perfectly normal with becoming a high-powered money reserve asset similar to gold. The Bitcoin whitepaper says that Bitcoin is to be a digital gold. I'm not sure I quite get you there. First you state that a transactional alt coin would be superior. Then you lament that a transactional alt coin would never become a reserve currency. Combined with the dichotomy of transactional currency vs reserve currency you established above this seems to be a contradictory statement. --- I'll try to dissect the rest of your post at a later time. For now I'll have to leave, I'm afraid. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 08, 2018, 02:03:31 PM From what I know, POS is inferior to POW and has more security issues? This has been true up to now (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers). But we can’t be certain that new development will not change that understanding. Sure, we can. Pos don't work, will never work in teory and in pratice. It is like using children to stop a bomb to save the same children. No matter which esoteric algorithm you try to find, soon or later the bomb will explode and childrens will die. To be safe they need a big trusted centralized shield or at least a personal decentralized shield. Shield is a resource outside the system to be wasted, if it is decentralized you are talking about a pow algorithm, if it is centralized you are talking about visa. I have stopped to read your posts because your tldrs are too full of arrogance, fud and politics, completly missing fairness and maidenliness. You would like to be right at any cost without trying to understand your errors. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on June 09, 2018, 12:38:30 AM Although it is definitively true that PoW is experiencing bad days, I'm against the op:
In my opinion, PoW being nothing less than a great innovative idea is nothing more than just an idea. It needs development and treatment, the very specific job that bitcoin developers failed and are failing to do (deliberately?). They failed improving bitcoin's SHA256 to resist ASICs and now they are preaching about its inevitability, a ridiculous hype made and propagated by Bitamain. Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0) for this problem. But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned" technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim! Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet (don't take junior hackers like Butterin and his stupid 'weak subjectivity' words or foolish 'slasher' proposal that serious, this kid is obsessed with being genious and will never manage to be one, I suppose) ... So, forget about changing PoW with something totally new. It is not art, it is not fashion show, it is about technology and science, it is about mathematics for the god sake! I understand the hype and merchandisation has produced so much fog and confusion, but we shouldn't lose our direction, we should work harder and improve faster. Just check the above link to get better what I'm talking about. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 09, 2018, 01:04:23 AM Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0) for this problem. I can not understand why you think pooled mining is so evil. Of course there are few big pools, but starting a new pool is not so difficult or expensive, it is more a marketing than a technology issue. Hundreds of miners can switch to a new pool at no cost if the pool they are using start becoming evil. However having 51% of the hashpower doesn't mean the pool will start to be evil. Can you remember deepbit? or cex? both gained more than 51% but none of them tried to doublespend or attack the network or be evil. Both are death now because miners naturally switched to others pool to prevent centralization.But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned" technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim! Finally someone telling truth! Wei Dai proposed a PoS like system in 1998 (bmoney v2)Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: KingScorpio on June 09, 2018, 04:25:50 AM Before that and most importantly, they overlooked/failed improving the protocol to eliminate the desperate need for pool mining. I have just started a topic regarding an improvement proposal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0) for this problem. I can not understand why you think pooled mining is so evil. Of course there are few big pools, but starting a new pool is not so difficult or expensive, it is more a marketing than a technology issue. Hundreds of miners can switch to a new pool at no cost if the pool they are using start becoming evil. However having 51% of the hashpower doesn't mean the pool will start to be evil. Can you remember deepbit? or cex? both gained more than 51% but none of them tried to doublespend or attack the network or be evil. Both are death now because miners naturally switched to others pool to prevent centralization.But it is very important to be reminded that unlike what op supposes, PoW is not some kind of an "old fashioned" technology to be replaced trivially, I believe, and if it was the case, PoS was not such a "new alternative" that he suggests, it is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing at such a claim! Finally someone telling truth! Wei Dai proposed a PoS like system in 1998 (bmoney v2)Years before Stoshi invention of PoW and bitcoin, reputation based systems were discussed and reached to their ultimate dead end suffering the same subjectivity issues PoS proponents have not addressed yet hmm ok someone creates a POS system, which makes it easy for someone to create their own token, then same issues like now, too many token are being created. next problem with bitcoin is basically the still unsolved question: why is the media privileging bitcoin why does it support an established group, and disadvantages the others, why not be neutral as they are supposed to be? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 09, 2018, 07:13:46 PM I'm sorry for this OT, please don't read.
hmm ok someone creates a POS system, which makes it easy for someone to create their own token, then same issues like now, too many token are being created. POS don't work, in teory and in pratice, it was established since 1998. No matter which esoteric algorithm you try to find. POS don't work and will never work because security have to come from external source. It cannot came from the same currency pos is trying to protect. To secure the blockchain you need something coming from outside. POW is secure because wasting energy is not free. More energy is wasted and more secure it is. Energy is not free. If energy become free, pow will fail, but I trust energy will never be free because of thermodynamics. next problem with bitcoin is basically the still unsolved question: why is the media privileging bitcoin why does it support an established group, and disadvantages the others, why not be neutral as they are supposed to be? media privileging bitcoin is something related to network effect and hype. Media work for money, not for the truth. So they will never be neutral, neutral media cannot be sold. Media are doomed by marketing, and will never be fair. I think bitcoin is the best and the only currency with some sense, but not because of media, but because its development don't care so much about marketing. Bitcoin developers always put decentralization and long term view at the first place. I think this entire thread is a fake to sell some, not working, esoteric solution. Actually bitcoin pow is not centralized, it is very far to be centralized and I hope it will never be centralized. No one can stop you from buying an asics and start mining, no one can stop you from manufacturing your personalized asic, no one can force you to use a specific pool. Of course there is a very little number of big pools, but thats don't matter, miners can switch pool in any moment and the big pool can loose his power in few seconds. You have to consider that we are reaching a physics point in asic optimization where it is very hard to improve performances. Antminer s9 was around for some time, reaching the state of the art in chipmaker industry. So asics lifetime is increasing giving space for concurrent manufacturer. Asics are good because they are easy to be produced so entry barriers for new manufacturer are low. Someone think about mining becoming an oligarchy, but is false. Oligarchy have to mine at profit to keep is power. When crowd are free, they are stronger than any oligarchy, they can mine at loss, only for fun or only to help decentralization killing any oligarchy. Bitcoin and cryptography are helping a lot of people to become free, to forbid governaments from their life. You have to be a free thinker and DYOR to use bitcoins, or you will die scammed. That's an unstoppable revolution and will change people minds. Sadly, as any revolution, it need his blood. In this revolution blood is your money when you get scammed by shitICOs, shitcoins, shitcloudmining, or any shit berichfast scam. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 09, 2018, 10:20:42 PM ok, I will try to reply to you another and the last time.
Miners, have no power over bitcoins, they can not control it in any way, you keep talking about miners zionist oligarchy, that can start mining an altcoin and steal segwit or p2sh because they say that trb is the real bitcoin. But they can't, they can not impose nothing. they can try to manipulate the market, but they can't win. Show me a single episode where miners was imposing something. Simply they can't. they tried to stop segwit, they tried to promote bitcoincash, they tried to vote for segwit2x. They failed every time. Miners have no voice because they are slave. They can not go against the market, they can only mine our chain. If you think they are free to hardfork you are wrong, they have bills to pay every month so they have to be fair to not lose their money. Now you say... miners can control sha256 market, but that's wrong too. They can't, they have to sell asics to produce asics at a lower price. if they will choose to not sell sha256 asics they will be less competitive. Sha256 asics are very easy to be designed, there are not so many secret improvements that can be done, so anyone with a little amount of money can call tsmc or samsung or intel or any other fundry and have his chip done. For the same reason tsmc can not refuse to produce wafers as their work queue cannot be empty. thats to say asics have to be sold to crowd. People has thousands of way to get very cheap energy, because energy is distribuited everywhere, the real cost is when you need to concentrate a big amount of energy. Also some people can consider to mine at loss, because they don't care as they have others sources of income. So mining oligarchy have to compete with crowd. Now you say pow is flawed because miners will never reach consensus without block reward. But that's wrong too. if miners don't cooperate to produce a longest chain they will waste energy for nothing giving away fee reward for a stupid uncooperative war where only one can win(the one with most hashpower). Now you will say me that crowd are easy to be manipulated with media. That's the only true thing you say, and it is the only real power zionist have. Media manipulation is where blood is needed. Now crowd have access to a decentralized source of informations, everyone can open a blog and no one can realistically do anything to stop information flow over the internet, new generations are able to use tor, search hiddens services, browsing freenet, i2p and so on, and zionist have no power against this. new generations don't need a crappy centralized bitcoincash socialnetwork. cryptoanarchy work forbidding zionist and making them and their strategies obsolete. this is my opinion today, I don't think I'm right or I have every answer, I study everyday and I will keep studying and researching, so, tomorrow, I can have a totally different opinion. My suggestion is always trust no one, DYOR. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 11, 2018, 02:49:38 PM Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog). It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase. Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty. It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 11, 2018, 04:26:37 PM @anunymint:
After looking through more of your past posts (both here and on Steemit / Medium) I think I now better understand your line of thinking. While in my opinion some of your high-level conclusions are rather speculative leaps and while I doubt that the narratives you've been building necessarily reflect reality, I see now that there's more substance to your arguments than I initially expected. Going into detail about my points of disagreement would derail this thread and probably be a fruitless exercise for both of us, but I'll definitely keep a closer eye on your writings. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 12, 2018, 12:12:13 AM Why did TPTB allow segwit at all if they don't like it? I assume that they could have stopped it, but trying to fit this in your theory... it was to:
1) Set an example: Attempts at modifying Bitcoin, even if through soft-forks, will not be tolerated. 2) To accumulate more BTC: By means of expropriation (the so called "segwit booty") and profiting through US government based futures (CME) shorts in the process. They also think they can get away with it and pump it back to ATH even after such a disaster happening and regaining confidence on it being a global store of value. This is where we differ, as some pointed out, I think the damage would be too much. By 2019 there will be more segwit activity than legacy. It could end up being an inside job that ends up not being profitable. It may be more profitable to simply keep milking transaction fees through LN becoming mainstream (without segwit LN doesn't reach it's full potential), and assuming TPTB controls mining, their funds would be safe while still having the power of stealing coins at will if needed. In any case, we will find soon, since the longer it takes for them to execute that theoretical attack the bigger the disaster would be and therefore it may not even be worth it for them anymore, so these expecting it to happen may sell and lose their position as nothing happens and price keeps going higher (again, this is also assuming it happens around the time you are proposing, that's somewhere next year, and it cannot take longer than that). Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 12, 2018, 10:57:34 AM [...] I hope the SegWit attack doesn’t start now. I am highly exposed to it. What a major fuckup if I predicted it but happened sooner than I expected. That is why I’m diversifying out of BTC now some into altcoins on this selloff this week (cost averaging until we hit the low below $6k I expect). But it is too late to sell BTC for fiat. Should have done that at $15+k (which I did take some profits at that time). [...] Slightly OT, but seeing how you described the weaknesses of various alts rather well -- what hedges within crypto are left in an adversarial environment such as this? Or are you simply trying to spread your risk as widely as possible without having to resort to fiat? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 12, 2018, 11:36:10 AM I assume you mean off-chain fees? There you go Core trying to find some way to take revenue away from the miners. I read something recently about some leverage they expect to have on LN hubs. And you think the miners will not fight back? Note AFAIK, LN can be reformulated without the P2SH feature of SegWit. If you mean on-chain fees, those will continue to rise regardless of SegWit. Why would the miners not take profits of the booty, the shorting, and the increased marketshare (meaning more BTC mined for them and more txn fees for them)? It is a zero-sum game regardless of the dip in price, because the price eventually goes up again. I mean on-chain fees. With LN it's still settled on chain every 10 minutes, and if mainstream use goes up I can see filled blocks worth of LN transactions settling and no one complaining about fees. I see many cool LN applications coming in the future that will drive usage, simple stuff like this is an example: https://satoshis.place/ That's a lot of money already on these pixels. Imagination is the limit with 0 fee instant transactions. LN can work without SegWit, but it's sort of a crippled version. With LN you can also make passive income, kind of like "PoS for Bitcoin", so it's another reason for them to just let things develop and enjoy the free money. But still, in case something wrong happens, moving your SegWit addresses into legacy addresses (before it happens) should be enough. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 12, 2018, 12:08:28 PM I mean on-chain fees. With LN it's still settled on chain every 10 minutes, and if mainstream use goes up I can see filled blocks worth of LN transactions settling and no one complaining about fees. [...] Maybe I misunderstand your post, but LN does not settle on-chain every 10 minutes. Otherwise, what would be the point? Making transactions on LN only requires 2 on-chain transactions: Opening the channel and closing the channel. Everything inbetween takes place off-chain, no matter whether the channel is upheld for 10 minutes, 10 days or 10 weeks. You might require additional on-chain transactions to "refill" your LN channel, but for the most part you don't need to hit the blockchain until the final settlement (ie. closing) transaction. LN can work without SegWit, but it's sort of a crippled version. With LN you can also make passive income, kind of like "PoS for Bitcoin", so it's another reason for them to just let things develop and enjoy the free money. But still, in case something wrong happens, moving your SegWit addresses into legacy addresses (before it happens) should be enough. LN requires a transaction malleability fix, SegWit being one possible solution. LN is possible without SegWit as long as you implement an alternative transaction malleability fix. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: fabiorem on June 13, 2018, 12:55:02 AM I hope the SegWit attack doesn’t start now. What kind of attack are you talking about? I know that SegWit addresses dont have a private equivalent. A SegWit address is based on a public address, but you cant recover the private equivalent from it. This gave me the impression this address is a third type of address in the same family (public, private and SegWit). Because of the lack of clarification from both the developers and the community, most of my stash is currently in standard adresses. Are you saying there is a risk in keeping bitcoins in SegWit addresses? What kind of risk would that be? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 13, 2018, 06:32:59 AM Actually Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain. This research proven game theory and economic fact (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg39515634#msg39515634) becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward. The article cited in the OP does not give you this Would having a "tail emission" like Monero help fix that problem? Not that it will happen in Bitcoin, just asking. Plus I believe Bitcoin will anyway need to increase the blocksize in 10 years. That can also help in driving down the fees, right? There must be something. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 13, 2018, 06:50:26 AM Actually Nakamoto proof-of-work MUST become centralized by an oligarchy otherwise it will no longer converge on a longest chain. This research proven game theory and economic fact (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg39515634#msg39515634) becomes true as the revenues from transaction fees become much greater than the revenue from the repeated halving of the block reward. The article cited in the OP does not give you this Would having a "tail emission" like Monero help fix that problem? Not that it will happen in Bitcoin, just asking. No (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7#oligarchy-or-hara-kiri-if-adaptive-block-size-protocol). Plus I believe Bitcoin will anyway need to increase the blocksize in 10 years. That can also help in driving down the fees, right? There must be something. No block size choice will ever resolve (https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/sterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-skypilot-re-themarkymark-steemit-creates-accounts-for-scammers-and-nobody-else-20180521t002925714z) the tragedy-of-the-commons in Bitcoin. All of this is far too complex for you to understand. You are trying to grasp at strings piece-meal and you do not have a good understanding. Sorry. This is above your pay grade. All I can say is do not trust yourself and certainly do not trust Carlton Banks to have the correct understanding. The block size will not increase. Transaction fees will go to $50,000. This is the correct design of Bitcoin as it was intended to be a reserve currency asset for the wealthy. I am not going to recapitulate. You keep your fantasies and observe what happens over the next 10 years. I will admit that I may not be as smart as most of the people who visit the forum. But if you think you are then how do you plan to fix it if the Bitcoin community were to ask and to depend on you? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 14, 2018, 05:29:41 AM Plus I believe Bitcoin will anyway need to increase the blocksize in 10 years. That can also help in driving down the fees, right? There must be something. No block size choice will ever resolve (https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/sterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-tenpoundsterling-re-anonymint-re-skypilot-re-themarkymark-steemit-creates-accounts-for-scammers-and-nobody-else-20180521t002925714z) the tragedy-of-the-commons in Bitcoin. All of this is far too complex for you to understand. You are trying to grasp at strings piece-meal and you do not have a good understanding. Sorry. This is above your pay grade. All I can say is do not trust yourself and certainly do not trust Carlton Banks to have the correct understanding. The block size will not increase. Transaction fees will go to $50,000. This is the correct design of Bitcoin as it was intended to be a reserve currency asset for the wealthy. I am not going to recapitulate. You keep your fantasies and observe what happens over the next 10 years. Going back to this, I believe even the smartest developers in Bitcoin does not have the correct solution to the problem. No one does. What you are posting are all your "theories", and how do we know that they will work in practice? Plus there are some developers that "theorized" that low fees will centralize mining more because there will be less incentive to do it leaving mining to only a few. But if you think you are then how do you plan to fix it if the Bitcoin community were to ask and to depend on you? I do not want to talk about vaporware. I am working on something, but I don’t talk it now. Thank you for asking. It does not help to talk about things which are not ready. It will just create animosity. I will just say that I think I have eliminated the 50+% attack entirely. If that is correct and there is no flaw, then it will be incredibly important. In theory or in practice? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: CoinCube on June 16, 2018, 09:33:46 AM I would rephase #1 as demonstrating that the wealthy have only one choice, which is to defend immutability. Those former wealthy who defect will end up not wealthy anymore. Roger Ver (and his 300,000 BTC) is leading the flock astray by making them think the wealthy want a transaction scalability system. Either he is intentionally deceiving (which I highly doubt and I see he’s not the smartest tool in the shed although not retarded), or he is going to be a sacrificial lamb (in the long-term). Yes on #2, I maybe forgot to state explicitly that all wealthy can join in the shorting, not just the miners. They can possibly also short at that juncture by selling their Core fork tokens and buy the Satoshi fork tokens, if some miners fork off and continue the Core fork and if there’s some means of exchanging. Also in theory the miners could offer to buy the Core fork tokens from wealthy people (i.e. those that can sell over a certain threshold) at a premium over market price so as to share some of the SegWit booty profits and then dump that SegWit on the market to drive the price down. They can buy only UTXO that was before the attack so as to not put premium into the pockets of those who want to repurchase Core fork. Those who think the attack is not realistic I think ignore the economic momentum created by the booty. And also: 3) The SegWit and LN scalability to create the hype for a nosebleed ATH. 4) To create the illusion that Bitcoin failed, so the nation-states will continue to be very slow at getting organized to stop it. Another form of deception. The Art of War. Recently a Chinese emissary stood up at a recent meeting (https://steemit.com/regulation/@anonymint/re-finitemaz-re-anonymint-re-finitemaz-re-anonymint-re-finitemaz-re-anonymint-a-utility-token-is-a-unicorn-20180607t221725800z) about cryptocurrency regulations in the USA and declared that USA and Canada (and by implication West in general) “are confused.” Very interesting that China already realized that Bitcoin is a trojan horse but the West is so fooled. But China can’t defeat Bitcoin. Their people will route around the government edicts. 5) To cause many greater fools to dump their crypto holdings at fire sale prices at the bottom of the next crypto winter. This is what the elite always do pump the economy with debt to eventually crash the economy so the middle-class has to sell and they can buy cheap. SegWit is a form of debt because they are all fractional reserves. Everyone who accepts a Core SegWit transaction has already lost the Satoshi BTC. 6) To increase their marketshare of the mining because marginal miners can be bankrupted by lower prices but the lowest cost miners with the highest economies-of-scale remain operational. 7) The ECB NIRP sovereign debt crisis (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/pension-crisis/irish-pension-invested-in-italian-bonds/) (c.f. also (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/ecb-bonds-people-believe-what-they-want-to-believe/) and also (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/europeans-pray-for-qe-to-end/)) in Europe should be starting right about the time of the next crypto winter so this will prevent Europeans from buying Bitcoin to avoid being raped by the banksters. I guess perhaps instead of going bankrupt maybe what exchanges would do is instead issue only Core fork BTC for those who want to withdraw existing BTC held before the fork. That presumes the Core fork would continue to have sufficient mining such that it is not attacked with continuous orphaning by the major miners. They also think they can get away with it and pump it back to ATH even after such a disaster happening and regaining confidence on it being a global store of value. This is where we differ, as some pointed out, I think the damage would be too much. Too much for what? Are you seriously claiming you would not buy an immutable Satoshi BTC at firesale prices at the crypto winter bottom? I will be buying with both hands, all three of my feet, and I’ll even swing my two dicks into that action (promise no photos this time). Bitcoin will have a much higher stature as a dependable reserve asset once immutability has been secured. No more fear about Core increasing the 21 million tokens limit, otherwise injecting ways for them to parasite on the wealthy, or being compelled by the masses to redistribute the wealth. IOW, a Bitcoin devoid of politics. John Nash’s Ideal Money must not be manipulable by politics. By 2019 there will be more segwit activity than legacy. It could end up being an inside job that ends up not being profitable. It may be more profitable to simply keep milking transaction fees through LN becoming mainstream (without segwit LN doesn't reach it's full potential), I assume you mean off-chain fees? There you go Core trying to find some way to take revenue away from the miners. I read something recently about some leverage they expect to have on LN hubs. And you think the miners will not fight back? Note AFAIK, LN can be reformulated without the P2SH feature of SegWit. If you mean on-chain fees, those will continue to rise regardless of SegWit. Why would the miners not take profits of the booty, the shorting, and the increased marketshare (meaning more BTC mined for them and more txn fees for them)? It is a zero-sum game regardless of the dip in price, because the price eventually goes up again. and assuming TPTB controls mining, their funds would be safe while still having the power of stealing coins at will if needed. In any case, we will find soon, since the longer it takes for them to execute that theoretical attack the bigger the disaster would be and therefore it may not even be worth it for them anymore, so these expecting it to happen may sell and lose their position as nothing happens and price keeps going higher (again, this is also assuming it happens around the time you are proposing, that's somewhere next year, and it cannot take longer than that). I hope you realize I have stated numerous times that I am not selling until at least $30k. I expect a new ATH early next year perhaps as high as $50k (maybe $70k on a spike). I will be taking profits regardless of SegWit risk. So even if SegWit attack does not occur, I will not feel like I lost. Even if BTC somehow keeps going to $1 million without any intervening crypto winter, I will not feel bad about taking profits. It’s been a nice run and I see too many systemic scale risks (i.e. on the level of a Mt.Gox event): * Tether * ICO crackdown * SegWit booty * ICO bubble burst I hope all of the above happen in 2019 or 2020. Then I can buy back in below $10k. I hope the SegWit attack doesn’t start now. I am highly exposed to it. What a major fuckup if I predicted it but happened sooner than I expected. That is why I’m diversifying out of BTC now some into altcoins on this selloff this week (cost averaging until we hit the low below $6k I expect). But it is too late to sell BTC for fiat. Should have done that at $15+k (which I did take some profits at that time). I have seen many in the Wall Observer thread state they will take profits at $50k. I’m expecting the euphoria about LN and SegWit reaching some critical mass will be pumped up in the mass media to drive the price to a new ATH nosebleed. A very interesting post. Here are my thoughts on your analysis. To start let me summarize your argument as I understand it. You feel that the role of Bitcoin in the future is to be an immutable reserve asset. Thus you reject the approach of Bitcoin Cash and their attempts to reduce transnational costs by rapid block size increases as a failure path. You also feel that the approach of Core is misguided in that their attempts to develop and scale bitcoin especially via SegWit is also a failure path. You argue that the correct path is to embrace immutability of bitcoin. As this is not a dominant theme in any current implementation of Bitcoin you believe there is a high risk of it emerging in the form of a future fork. You also highlight the ever increasing amount of BTC in Segregated Witness addressed as a constantly growing economic incentive for a future contentious rollback of SegWit as these funds could be captured via a fork that revoked SegWit. I agree with much of your argument. I think the BCH approach of rapid and massive increases in transaction volume is flawed. I also agree that their is a genuine and growing risk of a future rejection of Core and SegWit in favor of Bitcoin originalism especially as the economic incentive grows and especially if Lightening Network does not deliver as anticipated. The immutability portion of your argument is similar to that that put forward by traincarswreck here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.0 I found his back and forth with AgentofCoin especially interesting. I agree that there is a real risk here. There is no powerful originalist movement currently and I could easily see one developing in the future especially if Core is felt to be compromising the immutability of the protocol via unnecessary changes and especially as the economic incentive for a rollback grows. However, there are also mitigating factors. The SegWit booty is an asymmetrical advantage for the Satoshi fork. It can be shared with all those wealthy who sell Core as I explained. Core has no equivalent economic weapon. Core can’t steal Satoshi tokens and bribe wealthy to sell Satoshi tokens so as to dump them on the market. Let's examine the scenario you describe. Lets hypothesize that the miners wait until some critical mass of BTC are in SegWit addresses and then create a suprise fork where SegWit is rolled back with 60% of the hashpower it leaving 40% for Core. In the originalist fork the miners take all the thousands of BTC that are residing in SegWit addresses and make the argument that they are restoring security and immutability to Bitcoin. We could play with the numbers a bit but these are as good as any the survival of BCH indicates that any combination of numbers would not likely lead to the immediate cessation of either the Core or the new originalist chain. There are at least two powerful economic factors that could counter this scenario. The success of the originalist chain would be dependent on the acceptances of this chain as a return to originalism. It requires individuals or at least wealthy individuals to see it as the premiere immutable form of BTC. This outcome is not at all certain in such a fork and can be challenged by two powerful tools that would likely come into play. 1) The theft/taking of the SegWit transaction in a surprise minor fork could be challenged on its own terms by a later fork that was also originalist but more objectively fair. Faced with the surprise theft of all of the SegWit BTC by the miners in their fork it is highly probably that a follow up second originalist fork would occur but in a more transparent and fair manner with advance notice to individuals to move their funds to non SegWit addresses and only those who did not do so prior to the fork losing their originalist fork BTC. Ultimately what would drive value is not the miners but the wealthy. The wealthy may indeed favor an originalist fork if they feel immutability is not being sufficiently protected by Core but their primary reason for it would be a fear of oppression and theft. Given the choice between two equally immutable bitcoin forks where one has a giant theft built into its inception they will avoid the one that is widely perceived as grounded in theft and fraud. Value and hashpower would ultimately follow their choice. 2) Bitcoin Core could slowly become immutable. The incentive for a rollback is predicated on the wealthy losing confidence in the immutability of BTC Core due to excessive "updates". If this scenario does not come to pass. If BTC Core ossifies over time it could become immutable in which case the concept of massive wealth from a miner hardfork would be just an illusion. I agree, however, that the risk is real and should be taken seriously. If it comes to fruition, however, I think it would go down much like the BCH fork did. A public schism followed by an announced split. Anything more underhanded would simply set the fork up for failure as it could be easily supplanted by a more transparent fork that accomplished similar aims. The primary concern of the wealthy is protection of property rights and protection from theft. They are not going to want their wealth enshrined in a system that has massive theft built into its foundation not if similar security could be obtained without that baggage. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 16, 2018, 01:19:54 PM I would like if you can address my post here related to how fiat overlords can manipulate the market as will as long as:
1) The dollar is accepted in any market 2) Millions of people are under constant threat to accept the dollar to pay taxes 3) The dollar is backed by 1) 2) and an huge army https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg40113852#msg40113852 My point is, they can fork Bitcoin and pump it above BTC's the fool the public into thinking their fork has more market confidence than BTC, and assuming BTC whales already sold BCash , they have no longer influence on BCash and therefore BCash could be pumped to any value for as long as fiat overlords can keep printing money at will and people accept it (change BCash with any other fork they would decide to support, but BCash seems the most relevant one) The allegation of theft is a lack of technological understanding of the FLP impossibility theorem which states that Bitcoin can never have finality, only probabilitistic finality. Thus the Satoshi protocol is never dead and never died. Those who accept tokens with SegWit lineage have hard forked off from Satoshi’s Bitcoin and are now on a Core fork altcoin. They chose to fork off. Thus they already do not own Satoshi protocol tokens. Because any P2SH SegWit transaction is ANYONECANSPEND in the Satoshi protocol. Thus if the miners of the Satoshi protocol accept these ANYONECANSPEND donations, they are not stealing. So your response distills down to that whether the wealthy should be concerned about idiots who conflate theft with their own free-will to fork off. In case SegWit actually gets destroyed, you would just need to be holding your keys on legacy addresses before it happens. Just move your coins to legacy addresses, wait a safe amount of blocks and you are set, so it's not that big of a deal in this regard, price wise it will probably be a disaster. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on June 16, 2018, 02:45:26 PM In case SegWit actually gets destroyed, you would just need to be holding your keys on legacy addresses before it happens. Just move your coins to legacy addresses, wait a safe amount of blocks and you are set, so it's not that big of a deal in this regard, price wise it will probably be a disaster. Why are you repeating this (what I believe to be) incorrect information after I already responded to it before as quoted below? But still, in case something wrong happens, moving your SegWit addresses into legacy addresses (before it happens) should be enough. I don’t understand why you think that will secure against potential SegWit theft? If the lineage of your BTC had SegWit in it, then the hard fork can Why though? If you move coins from a SegWit address to a legacy address, those coins have already been spent. Any attempts to "harvest" anyone-can-spend transactions after they've been moved to a legacy address would result in an invalid transaction. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on June 16, 2018, 03:01:01 PM I would also appreciate if you would not erroneously call Satoshi’s protocol a fork. It never forked off. Core and BCH forked off. Satoshi has continued running unabated and there are uber wealthy million BTC hodlers using Satoshi’s protocol every day. Translation: Some hardline traditionalists are running some outdated code because groupthink. Now they talk shit about hypothetical SegWit theft whilst further isolating themselves from the rest of the community because they're too butthurt to accept reality for what it is. While it would be more fruitful to make constructive contributions, they instead opt to spit venom in the face of the wider community. They can keep believing the rest of the world will come around to their way of thinking eventually, but if their prognostications of mass-theft were to come true, their delight would be short-lived when it transpired that their vast holdings suddenly lost a noticeably large proportion of its functionality and value. What purchasing power do you think you'll have when no one wants to use Bitcoin anymore? SegWit is optional, so feel free not to make use of it. But don't wish upon it to lead to a major security breach unless you want this little cryptocurrency experiment of ours to end. No one will take crypto seriously for the next 100 years if Bitcoin were to fail in such a spectacular fashion. Your riches won't be much use to you when you're dead, so it seems pretty self-destructive to want to make them worthless while you're alive. As I stated in the other thread, you can't simultaneously have Bitcoin as a global reserve currency and have SegWit balances being stolen, causing everyone to think the network is insecure. That's a clear logical fallacy. You can root for one outcome or the other. Not both. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 16, 2018, 04:35:30 PM In case SegWit actually gets destroyed, you would just need to be holding your keys on legacy addresses before it happens. Just move your coins to legacy addresses, wait a safe amount of blocks and you are set, so it's not that big of a deal in this regard, price wise it will probably be a disaster. Why are you repeating this (what I believe to be) incorrect information after I already responded to it before as quoted below? But still, in case something wrong happens, moving your SegWit addresses into legacy addresses (before it happens) should be enough. I don’t understand why you think that will secure against potential SegWit theft? If the lineage of your BTC had SegWit in it, then the hard fork can Because it doesn't make sense that the entire lineage of transactions would be at risk if it contains a single SegWit transaction on it, no one would be safe from that at this point, unless you haven't touched your coins since august 2017. As a matter of fact, I looked at the chat logs in which the guy you mentioned hangs out and looked for SegWit stuff, I haven't seen any mentions of an address being at risk if the coins are sitting on a legacy format address whose private keys you control and said tx being matured by a reasonable number of blocks, even if it has a previous lineage of SegWit transactions: Quote mircea_popescu: now, if this is the plan it's not a very good one (you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able) but anyway ben_vulpes: isn't the practicality of reorg a function of segwitolade sum? mircea_popescu: but then again usg fronts don't need a good plan, they just need A PLAN. something, at all. idiots don't read. mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds. Also apparently disabling SegWit wouldn't require rolling blocks back: Quote steel: That would be bad for the real Bitcoin, no? Why wouldn't I wait to buy MUCH much more real Bitcoin after revert with same fiat paper BingoBoingo: steel: The way weird brokenshit like segwit and other turds that live in addresses that start with 3 work is that real nodes see them as "spend to any" BingoBoingo: Thusly segwit rollback does not mean rewinding blocks BingoBoingo: It means the miners that had been enforcing rules beyond those real Bitcoin nodes care about simply stop enforcing the extra rules BingoBoingo: As long as your coins sit in an address that starts with the number 1 and you control the keys your are safe BingoBoingo: Related, some people take the difference between Llamas and Alpacas VERY seriously Correct me if im wrong but from what I understand, if for some reason someone pays you in a SegWit address, you move the coins into a legacy format address, wait X blocks and then it would be pretty much impossible to steal, something I have been doing anyway, so I wouldn't be affected if/when it happens. This doesn't look as bad as entire lineages being compromised even if sitting on legacy addresses as you suggested, that would be insane, as well as the massive rollback. Bitcoin would survive, but still, price wise it will be a disaster. There are whales holding tons of coins in segwit addresses: https://blockchain.info/tx/92785a57f6e9e9eb9d37a00e6e8be7f888376f65fa2b8f868db261cbf6cca7b0 Losses would be massive. Do you realize that the same banksters (at least at the highest levels such as the Rothschild) who control the USD also are the same wealthy in Bitcoin. Why do you think they are putting Bitcoin all over their mass media? They funded Core. Not because they want Core to destroy Ideal Money. Because they’re playing a deception and theft game as they always do. Assange works for Rothschild. Look at who he was staying with in the UK before having to go into the Ecuador embassy. Look at who was funding his legal defense. Those are some big claims which would require further proof for me to believe. Where are you getting from that the Rothchilds have massive BTC stacks, exactly? And where are you getting from Core is Rothchilds funded? It's a valid theory but I don't see enough proof to confirm. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: CoinCube on June 16, 2018, 05:05:58 PM ... In summary, the Schelling point threshold for starting the SegWit theft is very high and only a sufficiently powerful mining cartel will launch it. ... the wealthy hate the masses, because the masses always want to steal via their non-meritorious concept of fairness. The masses take on too much debt, expect everything for free from the society/government, and then want to fleece the wealthy when their economic mismanagement ends up in economic collapse. ... The entire thesis of Bitcoin as a world reserve asset is that the nation-states are powerless to interfere with it because of jurisdictional arbitrage. So the wealthy have absolutely no fear of the governments nor the useful leftist idiots. ... Thus it is a necessary prerequisite that Bitcoin publicly demonstrate and boldly slap-down any fear of retribution from Marxists (i.e. the masses) before it will be fully respected as a form of Ideal Money. The allegation of theft is a lack of technological understanding... if the miners of the Satoshi protocol accept these ANYONECANSPEND donations, they are not stealing. I think it would be useful to summarize and highlight our areas of disagreement. 1) Schelling point threshold for a SegWit rollback. I take the position that this will not be reached if Core slowly solidifies towards immutability over time which remains a probable outcome. You have stated that you view reaching such a Schelling point as a risk not a guaranteed outcome so we may agree here. 2) Powerlessness of nation-states due to jurisdictional arbitrage. I think your analysis overestimates the power of bitcoin and underestimates the resiliency of human error. The fiat system may be slapped down as you predict but that process will likely give rise to something much worse. Jurisdictional arbitrage offers only partial and incomplete protection. I don't believe Bitcoin is going to be boldly slapping down anyone. Instead it will succeed by failing to die. Any person who is wealthy and has no fear of governments is taking an unwise position. I highlighted how I believe this will play out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3341237.msg35427611#msg35427611 3) The definition of theft. Failure to secure ones money or failure to anticipate a theft vector does not mean the taking is not a theft. If I leave a pile of money unguarded on my front porch it may indeed be stolen and I may have no recourse but my failure to secure it does not mean the taking would not be theft. Theft is and will be the primary concern of the wealthy which is why they would never support a transition to a system grounded in theft when superior solutions/transitions are possible. To borrow your language the Schelling point for such a transition would never be reached as there are other lower energy Schelling points that would be hit first and transition the system. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on June 16, 2018, 09:21:09 PM Despite minor disagreements between people who are discussing more actively (belonging to a sect or somewhat?) here they share some common ideologically biased opinions that I don't think fit to development and technical discussion at all. Is bitcointalk under attack ???
One common claim which is made and repeated is about bitcoin to be some kind of a treasure and not a monetary system. I believe the way bitcoin has been treated after Satoshi by Core and practiced by gamblers and speculative investors is just what you do with a digital asset but it is frustrating when I see people dare to officially announce bitcoin not being a monetary system. Taking advantage of current limitations and shortcomings of bitcoin that is failing to fulfil its mission as an alternative monetary system is opportunistic and hypocritical and the most disgusting semi-technical gesture ever. It is opportunistic because instead of taking the responsibility and thinking about their obligations and duties, this people are just trying to take advantage of the situation. It is hypocritical because, they pretend to be part of an ecosystem while they aren't. Another vague, ugly claim that has been made here is about bitcoin being doomed to centralization. A truly bold claim. Current situation with pools and ASICs is not an inherent and inevitable property of bitcoin it can be fixed and treated properly and a responsible fateful person, instead of playing such a dirty game in public sphere, should spend more time on possible technical and socio-economical steps and strategies to be taken for fixing the flaws and improving the ecosystem. Disclaimer: I know, it is time for the sect to come, insulting and accusing me of being this or that kind of person, deceived by media , n00b, ... I just have to warn them: Don't expect any tolerance from my side for any brutal/trolling act. If you got something to say, just say it, don't try to fool people by your trolling skills. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 17, 2018, 03:30:48 PM Quote mircea_popescu: now, if this is the plan it's not a very good one (you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able) but anyway ben_vulpes: isn't the practicality of reorg a function of segwitolade sum? mircea_popescu: but then again usg fronts don't need a good plan, they just need A PLAN. something, at all. idiots don't read. mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds. AFAICT, Mircea Popescu made an egregious error in that statement. He is ostensibly a literary genius but AFAICT his technological accuracy is occasionally lacking (ostensibly because he is distracted/preoccupied by porn, philosophy, boredom, and what not). In fact I explain near the end of this post in my reply to @CoinCube, that the miners must take all the donations back to block 1, else security will never be restored. Have you debated Mircea Popescu on this matter on IRC if you think he is wrong? This is urgent because you now got me worried as I thought lineage of coins was irrelevant as long as your coins are sitting on legacy addresses whose tx's have matured for a couple of blocks (otherwise to my understanding Bitcoin would be broken if you would be able to steal these funds). If you are correct and lineage is relevant, then pretty much 99% of people will have losses except basically those who haven't done anything since August 2017. Around the 80% of my coins have been sitting since August 2017 and earlier, but the rest I've transacted and received some other funds (some legacy, some SegWit, but those people that paid me in SegWit I sent back to legacy thinking it was safe). Im not going to send my coins into some shitcoin as an hedge of you being correct on lineages mattering unless it's absolutely clear that that is the case. As far as selling for fiat goes in order to buy later... im not looking forward to it. Just thinking about all the paperwork and taxes makes me an infallible hodler. You have to report every coin you've received, every transaction to exchanges (some of them collapsed and I lost trading records so im not sure how that would work), even trades from BTC into shitcoins would need to be reported, it's insane, it would take me years to get all the paperwork done and still it would be a risk that they find a small error or missing bits and they confiscate your funds. Probably an exchange’s transaction. I have stated that I think exchanges can possibly be bankrupted by the hard fork coming. To recapitulate again what I had already written, the exchanges may give you only Core fork tokens when you cash out of the exchange. You will not receive Satoshi fork tokens when you cash out. No, that address is actually from a guy that has an account here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=73652 It just shows that there are whales supporting SegWit too. Btw that is only one address, he has more. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Marlo Stanfield on June 17, 2018, 03:59:30 PM Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog). It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase. Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty. It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation. I'm certainly no 'big blocker' and I support Core, but I agree and I very much think that Satoshi's general idea was not to keep it at 1MB, but exceed it eventually. The thing is that he had no way of knowing the reality and conditions of the future to really have an informed opinion. So either way it's totally useless to try to extrapolate whatever we think his opinions or gut feelings were back in 2009/2010. Satoshi deserves all the respect in the world, but people treating him as some sort of divine power and his writings as gospel are off their rocker so to speak. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on June 17, 2018, 06:58:39 PM Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog). It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase. Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty. It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation. My understanding was that Hal Finney was pretty much the driving force behind the implementation of the 1MB cap. Contrary to what anonymong is saying, Satoshi was quite reluctant to even consider the idea at first. It was Finney's original idea to implement a limit and he had lengthy debates about it with Satoshi and Cryddit. Finney eventually got his way and the cap was introduced. If Satoshi and Finney were the same person, he was either a brilliant actor or a bona fide schizophrenic. Neither seem plausible to me. Particularly with that level of healthy discourse between them. I believe that, in each other, Satoshi and Finney found someone they could bounce ideas off and get the other person's perspective. Something that isn't all that effective if you're talking to yourself. Perma-bans are badges we wear with great pride, because they indicate we were resisting the idiocy. a) That's the exact opposite of what it indicates b) You should demonstrate your great pride by not registering 25613146 alts to flout it Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 18, 2018, 01:11:22 AM Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency, as supported by the fact that Satoshi intentionally left the block size fixed at 1MB (c.f. the Decentralized section of my linked blog). It's not clear to me that satoshi willingly set 1 MB as something that was part of a bigger plan involving a dead end which would force a settlement network to take place, I believe the official statement (that is, that he lowered the 32 MB limit to 1 MB to avoid spam, temporarily). This doesn't mean I buy into the "blocks-as-big-as-needed" approach by altcoin scammers, neither im saying we need a blocksize increase. Basically, it was set to 1MB, and by the time one wanted to increase it, it was too late, as attempts would result in ugly uncoordinated splits generating altcoins as a result. Once he set 1MB it was set in stone, the question is if he was aware of this or not back then. I believe people often overrate satoshi's long term thinking on his own creation, he was discovering what it would become along the way, with the rest of the people involved since the early days, or maybe you are right and it was part of the plan, but im not willing to clam I knew his intentions with 100% certainty. It's worth noting that Hal Finney was aware of the "settlement network fate" back in 2010, I don't know if any other big names saw that as well. It very well could be that Hal was satoshi and he knew, but didn't want to claim that as satoshi; then again that's all speculation. My understanding was that Hal Finney was pretty much the driving force behind the implementation of the 1MB cap. Contrary to what anonymong is saying, Satoshi was quite reluctant to even consider the idea at first. It was Finney's original idea to implement a limit and he had lengthy debates about it with Satoshi and Cryddit. Finney eventually got his way and the cap was introduced. If Satoshi and Finney were the same person, he was either a brilliant actor or a bona fide schizophrenic. Neither seem plausible to me. Particularly with that level of healthy discourse between them. I believe that, in each other, Satoshi and Finney found someone they could bounce ideas off and get the other person's perspective. Something that isn't all that effective if you're talking to yourself. Perma-bans are badges we wear with great pride, because they indicate we were resisting the idiocy. a) That's the exact opposite of what it indicates b) You should demonstrate your great pride by not registering 25613146 alts to flout it I believe both arguments are equally valid: 1) Satoshi was unaware of some of the ramifications of taking certain decisions long term, he was not certain that the 1MB cap would be set in stone, but he did certainly predict people being against it: Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale. Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either. The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities. If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other. Satoshi was/were clearly very smart, but im not sure if he had absolute knowledge of every possible outcome on a 10+ year timeline, or at least being able to predict that whatever his/their goal was would be reached. 2) Satoshi was/were absolutely aware of everything and it's all part of a big plan. Both scenarios are possible, but we can only speculate about it. Rothchild-grade fortunes and whatnot being involved, it could or it couldn't be. I haven't seen enough evidence personally other than speculation. I also think anunymin shouldn't be banned again, he brings interesting points of view not often discussed. I would like to see gmaxwell, LukeJr, Adam Back, Peter Wiulle, Matt Corallo... posting here more often and less often on Reddit. As far as I remember, their stance was that the "anyonecanspend" attack would never happen due basically lack of miner incentive to do so, they consider it as an impossible out of theory. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on June 18, 2018, 09:41:01 AM .. snip .. Aaahhhh.. AnonyMint. Your ability to reincarnate has activated again I see.. (I count 5 lives left) In all honesty, I cannot deny I've missed some aspects of the intellectual brutality of your posts. Still as batshit-cray-in-your-face as ever though. .. but if their prognostications of mass-theft were to come true Best word! --------------------------------- Back to the original topic --------------------------------- I think not. The problem is not POW. Pow as an objective un-fakeable work unit is genius. The problem is that we PAY people to accumulate POW. Centralisation is pernicious. It creeps in, slowly at first.. until it's too late. The DAG coins have flaws, sure, but in this respect they have removed the elephant in the room. I believe 1 Billion users could outpace a cartel, if they were mobilised in the correct way. Someone just needs to come up with a way of doing it (that doesn't involve some other centralised entity stitching the disparate parts together). Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 18, 2018, 12:24:47 PM 40,000 BTC is not a whale. It is a dolphin. M.P. has 500,000+ BTC for example and he isn’t even the top whale BTC whale. And apparently a dolphin that is going to get slaughtered, although it is possible the miners may decide not to accept P2SH donations from known dolphins, because it is in their interest to bring this dolphin over to the Satoshi fork if they feel they need his economic weight (he may be issued an ultimatum if he is lucky and his politics isn’t going to keep mucking with immutability otherwise he needs to be fleeced and kicked out). Also we don’t know this user is planted as a deception wherein the wealthy will simply donate their coins back to themselves: Interesting. So who do you think is the top BTC whale nowadays? Someone made some sort of list but it was very outdated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.0 Have you PM’ed him a link to this thread? I don't think he browses this forum anymore or at least he doesn't log in too often, last time he logged in was to do the bet with Roger Ver, but I will send him a PM. In some countries apparently trades to altcoins is still like-kind and not a taxable event. But in the USA that is no longer the case as of this year. Yeah it is a mess. Most people have lost their trading records, due exchanges shutting down, or just exchanges not saving all-time records. For instance Livecoin which is an exchange used to trade smaller alts without any KYC, doesn't save records for more than 30 days, so I've lost some trades. That is a problem if you ever want to cash out into fiat whose gains were made in said lost trades. Maybe you can ask M.P. if his TMSR is offering any solution for Bitcoin maximalists like yourself to protect themselves. Presumably a whale could mix your SegWit lineage into a huge amount of non-SegWit so miners would not accept the donation. But I think they will probably view it as not their responsibility for the mistakes of others, i.e. meritocracy. Im not going to get involved in that personally, I think they hang out in IRC, I don't even know how to use IRC anymore, last time I used IRC it was 10 years ago, all the channels I used to visit are now dead, most people hang out in slack and discord these days, I miss the simplicity of IRC tho. Maybe someone sees the thread and asks, I don't see the problem if you are polite. For the time being I will just keep holding my coins on legacy addresses and if someone finds out any further information on this please let us know. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 19, 2018, 02:58:24 AM But still, in case something wrong happens, moving your SegWit addresses into legacy addresses (before it happens) should be enough. I don’t understand why you think that will secure against potential SegWit theft? If the lineage of your BTC had SegWit in it, then the hard fork can Because it seems to me that you are not talking about a segwit theft using anyonecanspend. You are talking about a 51% attack to rollback at august 2017. If miners are able to perform such big attack, why they can't rollback from block 1 or the height they want to doublespend all their old transactions? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: infofront on June 23, 2018, 10:46:09 PM Some more good info from the logs:
Quote mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds. mircea_popescu: now, if this is the plan it's not a very good one (you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able) but anyway mircea_popescu: exactly the same play. oh, we "buy" bitcoin crash. if it takes, it's good. if it doesn't take, guess what, segwit unroll later. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 25, 2018, 07:56:10 AM This is off topic but how do the Bitcoin Core developers react to Mircea Popescu's statements? Do they take him seriously? Are there old topics or logs on them?
Plus what kind of node does he run if his belief is that the Bitcoin Core software today is "not Bitcoin"? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on June 25, 2018, 08:33:21 AM This is off topic but how do the Bitcoin Core developers react to Mircea Popescu's statements? Do they take him seriously? Are there old topics or logs on them? Plus what kind of node does he run if his belief is that the Bitcoin Core software today is "not Bitcoin"? Carefully and rarely. Yes. Yes. http://thebitcoin.foundation/ http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=trb Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on June 25, 2018, 04:35:03 PM https://jochen-hoenicke.de/
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2,24h Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on June 25, 2018, 09:50:25 PM Core has some guys with reasonably high IQs. Maybe up in the 145 range or so. But I would roughly guess that Mircea Popescu is in the 160 - 180 IQ range. FYI everyone (and OT..... or is this bang on-topic? ;D) Mircea Popescu has a confirmed penchant for swarming this board with bizarre alt accounts that he controls, and is noticeably eccentric even when performing in his own persona on his website. Very eccentric. And very, very self-absorbed, using multiple alt-accounts to control the narrative about himself seems very important to Popescu. Anonymint is, curiously, the only person who's ever said anything positive about Mircea Popescu, except Popsecu's more obvious alt accounts. Interestingly enough. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 26, 2018, 07:15:17 AM This is off topic but how do the Bitcoin Core developers react to Mircea Popescu's statements? Do they take him seriously? Are there old topics or logs on them? Plus what kind of node does he run if his belief is that the Bitcoin Core software today is "not Bitcoin"? Carefully and rarely. Yes. Yes. http://thebitcoin.foundation/ http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=trb Wind_FURY, I read that you have a high degree of confidence in Core (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3670474.msg40637501#msg40637501). Did you see where I explained that Gregory Maxwell was incorrect about the Ogg sound protocol he was supposed to be an expert in since he was a core developer on one of the popular codecs? Yes I do. They have been maintaining a decentralized multibillion network and protocol, and I believe they have been doing fine in their decisions so far, apart from the critics saying that "they might break the network" in theory. Plus you said you make mistakes. Gmaxwell also did, if he did. I would not know. Quote Core has some guys with reasonably high IQs. Maybe up in the 145 range or so. But I would roughly guess that Mircea Popescu is in the 160 - 180 IQ range. There was some brief attempt by Gregory Maxwell to grandstand in a discussion thread and Mircea Popescu wiped him with the floor. It wasn’t even close. Gregory then proceeded to STFU. He had actually banned M.P. from some discussion or something (back when M.P. was still willing to communicate outside his own IRC freenode), I forgot the details. I don’t have time to go searching for that specific discussion. The difference is akin to the digitization of flowers example I showed you (see quote below). We can presume that Mircea Popescu has surrounded himself with other such geniuses and it is unlikely they are mistaken. Note rpietila (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=68520) has an IQ of 167, and I have no idea what happened to my friend. I’ve been too overloaded to apply the effort into researching whether he is faking losing all his wealth or if he has mental stability problems. So by that I mean genius IQ is not the sole factor. Another issue is the socialization of the Core developers who have ostensibly adopted progressive, social justice philosophy (i.e. irrational belief in democracy (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-dobby-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-unfairness-of-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-explained-in-beer-20180622t053102878z) and other psychosis (http://trilema.com/2018/the-common-psychosis/)) which thus blinds them to new objectivity of John Nash’s Ideal Money. With your high IQs, do you believe that you, Mircea and rpietila would make a good replacement for the Core developers? Are you confident that you can "make Bitcoin great again"? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on June 26, 2018, 10:11:25 AM You mean there are allegations, but no proof of him employing sockpuppets. There was an MP PR (i.e. public relations for Mircea Popescu) account hanging around a long time after Popescu was banned from bitcointalk.org. Come on now. And you change your account every month. And sometimes create other accounts that use the exact same posting style, argument style and opinions in general. Geniuses are eccentric. Yet his logic is impeccable. And apparently he had designed a Bitcoin finance/speculation system that netted him at least 0.5 million Bitcoin. That is efficient. Whilst Core developers were busy spinning their hamster wheels and trying to make Bitcoin a TPS scalable transaction coin which AFAICT is alien to the invariants of proof-of-work. So you're both very stable geniuses? Interesting. Some observations There are a lot of parallels between Mircea Popescu and Anonymint. Both use alot of alt accounts. Both are full of talk and little action. Both obsessed with their intellect. Both troll as if it's an Olympic sport (it proves how smart they are, despite achieving very little of any substance). If Mircea Popescu were to lose his life (presumably for annoying some Eastern European gangsters or something like that), I wonder what would happen to Anonymint (and his many alt accounts)? ;D Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on June 26, 2018, 10:55:46 AM 2012 called and wants its lies and its stupidity back.
iiuc (unlikely) he was just being modest to provoke a reaction mircea_popescu: (http://btcbase.org/log/2018-06-13#1825137) does it seem to you a maybe-isp, a mmorpg, some we don't have REs and some novel length fiction warrants a 100bn valuation for the republic ? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: infofront on June 26, 2018, 04:29:31 PM Core has some guys with reasonably high IQs. Maybe up in the 145 range or so. But I would roughly guess that Mircea Popescu is in the 160 - 180 IQ range. There was some brief attempt by Gregory Maxwell to grandstand in a discussion thread and Mircea Popescu wiped him with the floor. It wasn’t even close. Gregory then proceeded to STFU. He had actually banned M.P. from some discussion or something (back when M.P. was still willing to communicate outside his own IRC freenode), I forgot the details. I don’t have time to go searching for that specific discussion. The difference is akin to the digitization of flowers example I showed you (see quote below). We can presume that Mircea Popescu has surrounded himself with other such geniuses and it is unlikely they are mistaken. Note rpietila (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=68520) has an IQ of 167, and I have no idea what happened to my friend. I’ve been too overloaded to apply the effort into researching whether he is faking losing all his wealth or if he has mental stability problems. So by that I mean genius IQ is not the sole factor. Another issue is the socialization of the Core developers who have ostensibly adopted progressive, social justice philosophy (i.e. irrational belief in democracy (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-dobby-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-unfairness-of-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-explained-in-beer-20180622t053102878z) and other psychosis (http://trilema.com/2018/the-common-psychosis/)) which thus blinds them to new objectivity of John Nash’s Ideal Money. I would note that some geniuses and high IQ individuals have trouble communicating well verbally. Also, some don't have the debate skills, or ordered, logical thinking skills necessary. There are very few people above that ~145 IQ level who are well-rounded individuals. Perhaps Risto is a good example of that. The last I heard, he was in a group home of some sort (a lite loony bin). It was well known that he was manic depressive. He had started his online RPG world (Crypto Kingdom), which had developed a fairly large economy (millions of real life dollars in value). For some reason, he went off his meds and everything went downhill. He lost all of his Monero, and his wife divorced him. Running Crypto Kingdom while he was in a state of mania, he began to see himself as a god. I think he was still accepting Monero, but for withdrawals, he was sending people his imaginary Crypto Kingdom fiat. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: infofront on June 26, 2018, 06:04:23 PM By 2015, my ex had depleted my remaining $100k and I was destitute and becoming more ill stuck in poverty in Mindanao with no health insurance, no options to leave, and backwater provincial third world health care system. No family members at all who can help me with anything. Are you still there? My wife is from Davao. I visited once with her about 4 years ago. It was a pleasant experience. She wants to move back, but I'm quite wary. It seems the Muslim situation in Mindanao has deteriorated. She thinks Davao is insulated from that, but I'm not so sure. Quote from: anunymint Also even if they are thinking logically their communication range can be too high for the person more than two standard deviations below them to understand. Because they’re building abstract models that are incomprehensible to those 2 or 3 standard deviations below them. So if their behavior or communication appears to be gibberish, it may actually not be. That's true Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: infofront on June 27, 2018, 02:10:17 AM Sounds like you really went through the wringer. Glad to hear things are getting better.
And yeah, I've got a kid. I don't know if I'd want to subject her to Dengue, bad schools, etc. It would be a good place to be single though. Lots of pretty girls who Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 27, 2018, 05:16:26 AM Wind_FURY, I read that you have a high degree of confidence in Core (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3670474.msg40637501#msg40637501). Did you see where I explained that Gregory Maxwell was incorrect about the Ogg sound protocol he was supposed to be an expert in since he was a core developer on one of the popular codecs? Yes I do. They have been maintaining a decentralized multibillion network and protocol, and I believe they have been doing fine in their decisions so far, apart from the critics saying that "they might break the network" in theory. There wasn’t much they needed to do. They added cruft on top which is going to be burnt to a crisp eventually. I would assume you mean Bitcoin's soft fork to Segwit. I have begun reading your post history to pick up some information and reach out to other smart people to find a "second opinion". Quote With your high IQs, do you believe that you, Mircea and rpietila would make a good replacement for the Core developers? @rpietila ostensibly can’t even maintain his security on his laptop. He doesn’t take any interest in programming. He has a very fast, sharp mind and can for example win at casino games. He can compute complex probabilities in his head instantly. Mircea is too wealthy to expend his time as an engineer. He can contract others to do that for him. He is capable of programming if he wants to. He has even for example written an attempted proof on an open computational NP not equal to P complexity problem: https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0411033.pdf Yes Trilema has been running and providing the Satoshi protocol full node for years. Last of the V8s already provided the link for you. It is purposely designed to look like a site with nothing on it, so that bunny rabbits will stay on Core so they lose all their Bitcoin. Multibillion bunny rabbits you mean. If true then they will take the whole system with them. Quote Are you confident that you can "make Bitcoin great again"? Me? Not me. You mean can the Trilema (aka TMSR) Satoshi protocol full node continue to grow the Bitcoin market cap to $21 trillion by 2032 (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180626t062739046z) as it has been doing and never stopped doing. The Core market cap will fall away to the proximity of 0 BTC eventually. Because social justice retards (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180626t062739046z). Answer is yes. (click that link (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180626t062739046z). Bitcoin is not intended to be a transactional currency. The invariants of proof-of-work make it impossible. You are free to disagree and throw your lot with Core. I will not recapitulate again.) Note they’re probably laughing at me for expending my time to reply to you. This is embarrassing. Let’s stop. Them? The Core developers? If they are then I believe they might be laughing at you because they disagree with your theories. But sharing knowledge to the newbies like me is always good for the growth of the community. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on June 27, 2018, 08:49:38 AM That pdf about p versus np won't be his, surely. It's a common name. Sorry I missed it earlier.
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 28, 2018, 06:13:05 AM I would assume you mean Bitcoin's soft fork to Segwit. I have begun reading your post history to pick up some information and reach out to other smart people to find a "second opinion". Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. If someone can’t discern the facts, then all they have is an asshole. I found this when I was browsing the internet, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57275/could-miners-possibly-steal-segwit-transactions-on-the-real-bitcoin The Shelby Moore person has the same arguments as yours about the Segwit soft fork. But achow made a practical reply. Quote If segwit activates, any attempt to steal anyone's Bitcoin by stealing segwit outputs will be considered invalid and any blocks that contain said transactions will be invalid and thus will be a hard fork. With a hard fork, anything goes. Anyone can make a hard fork and confiscate anyone's coins on that fork, it is, after all, a change in consensus rules where you can make the consensus rules whatever you want. "The Real Bitcoin" is no different. In fact several forks have been made from Bitcoin which no one really cares about, and "The Real Bitcoin" will just be another one of those. If there is no economic activity and no users actually use a coin, it is worthless and no one will care about it. Currently ALL miners are signaling for segwit per the BIP 91 rules. No miners are using "The Real Bitcoin" and no major businesses, exchanges, or users are using it. In fact, the vast majority of users (including businesses and exchanges) and miners are supporting segwit. So sure, you could hard fork and steal coins spent in Segwit transactions, but no one would care because it would be a hard fork and it would just become another altcoin that no one ever thinks about. Also, you could just steal all P2SH coins now. P2SH was released after "The Real Bitcoin" made their fork. And it would get you more coins much sooner. But no one would care if you did. Miners are also incentivized to not hard fork and steal coins. Besides the fact that stealing coins means that they will be damaging the value of the chain they forked from, miners are also then taking the risk that the fork that they switched to will be completely worthless. It is far more profitable to continue to mine the chain which the majority of the community backs and will be using than it is to mine some fork which will likely be worthless with no users on that fork. There will be more transactions on that chain and more value with it as people are actually using it. Furthermore, any miner who did choose steal anyone's coins would come under significant criticism from everyone in the community and that would be terrible for their reputation. If talking about "game theory" would it not be against the self interest of the miners to "steal" Segwit outputs if they can do it? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on June 28, 2018, 11:40:04 AM Anonymint and Shelby Moore are the same ("he" also in the past was behind Bitcointalk usernames TPTB_need_war, iamnotback, dinofelis, trainscarwreck, + many many more)
But it's highly likely that the whole "Shelby" thing is simply a theatrical version of Mircea Popescu (this entire line of reasoning originated with him), a rich early adopter of Bitcoin who became crazed with trying to control the discourse on Bitcointalk about 5 years ago, and was subsequently banned. It would make alot of sense if so, as it would be unusual for someone like that to lose their motivation in a puff of smoke. Creating dozens of alt accounts to push the conversation/positon in a direction for which the only public adherent is Mircea Popescu would be exactly the slightly deranged behaiour you would expect of someone who has been perma-banned like that. achow101 doesn't mention in the above that there are over 4 million BTC in P2SH addresses, and probably were a year ago when he wrote that reply. If 4 million BTC isn't enough to trigger P2SH booty, I don't know what would be (and the irony is that the more BTC stolen in a hardfork, the more disgruntled opponents, and the less likely it is that anyone will follow the fork). Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 28, 2018, 01:00:02 PM Miners could use this logic for re-appropriating (stealing, "donating to self", whatever) BTC 11 million in P2PKH addresses + BTC 4.3 million in P2SH addresses + BTC 150 thousand segwit addresses. Can you explain why the attack isn't happening now? Why not, it's only 15 million BTC! They could take it all, couldn't they? probably they are waiting some very fail from Core. As soon as core fail a single commit they can take the momentum to discredit all work done by all core developers and by all people trying to upgrade bitcoin. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: cellard on June 28, 2018, 02:01:10 PM Anonymint and Shelby Moore are the same ("he" also in the past was behind Bitcointalk usernames TPTB_need_war, iamnotback, dinofelis, trainscarwreck, + many many more) But it's highly likely that the whole "Shelby" thing is simply a theatrical version of Mircea Popescu (this entire line of reasoning originated with him), a rich early adopter of Bitcoin who became crazed with trying to control the discourse on Bitcointalk about 5 years ago, and was subsequently banned. It would make alot of sense if so, as it would be unusual for someone like that to lose their motivation in a puff of smoke. Creating dozens of alt accounts to push the conversation/positon in a direction for which the only public adherent is Mircea Popescu would be exactly the slightly deranged behaiour you would expect of someone who has been perma-banned like that. achow101 doesn't mention in the above that there are over 4 million BTC in P2SH addresses, and probably were a year ago when he wrote that reply. If 4 million BTC isn't enough to trigger P2SH booty, I don't know what would be (and the irony is that the more BTC stolen in a hardfork, the more disgruntled opponents, and the less likely it is that anyone will follow the fork). What achow101 said is what I originally claimed: that no one would care, because all economic activity would be happening on the SegWit chain, but then again, once P2SH/bech32 addresses are exposed, would you continue trusting said chain? The "there' is already an huge booty, why aren't they done it yet" question is a valid one, I don't have the answer for that. As goddog said, they may be waiting for an opportunity to present itself, but wouldn't BCH gain more traction from that? They have all the "anti-segwit" marketing themselves, tons of people would fall for that and move their coins into BCH, so they would have another task: To kill BCH (assuming the September stress test doesn't do that already). Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on June 28, 2018, 02:15:08 PM probably they are waiting some very fail from Core. As soon as core fail a single commit they can take the momentum to discredit all work done by all core developers and by all people trying to upgrade bitcoin. They've been waiting since 2011, that's kind of a long time. And Core did screw up since then; the accidental hard-fork in 2013 being the most prominent example I can think of. That was the biggest chance to discredit the devs, and it wasn't taken. Segwit's long road to activation was a major opportunity too, but there was barely a whisper from this "Satoshi immutabilist" camp Don't you think that nigh on 8 years of failing to convince anyone of the reality of this attack (and let's not forget 8 years of network upgrades...) discredits this immutability argument? You're saying "the longer we wait, the more likely everyone is to want to return to the 2011 Bitcoin software, where the miners get awarded an extra 5 million Bitcoin", but maybe it's more like that the longer we wait, the more insignificant and bizarre the whole idea is. what I originally claimed: that no one would care, because all economic activity would be happening on the SegWit chain, but then again, once P2SH/bech32 addresses are exposed, would you continue trusting said chain? If P2SH/bech32 are "exposed", then that's only happening on the hard-forked blockchain with different rules that permits it. Why would that concern anyone on the Bitcoin chain? Different chains, different rules Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on June 28, 2018, 02:29:50 PM And Core did screw up since then; the accidental hard-fork in 2013 being the most prominent example I can think of. That was the biggest chance to discredit the devs, and it wasn't taken. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152027.0;allIn re Bitcoin Devs are idiots March 12, 2013, 01:24:05 AM Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on June 28, 2018, 02:33:09 PM there is a big difference between p2sh and p2wsh/p2wpkh
Don't you think that nigh on 8 years of failing to convince anyone of the reality of this attack (and let's not forget 8 years of network upgrades...) discredits this immutability argument? You're saying "the longer we wait, the more likely everyone is to want to return to the 2011 Bitcoin software, where the miners get awarded an extra 5 million Bitcoin", but maybe it's more like that the longer we wait, the more insignificant and bizarre the whole idea is. thats a good argument.but wouldn't BCH gain more traction from that? They have all the "anti-segwit" marketing themselves, tons of people would fall for that and move their coins into BCH, so they would have another task: To kill BCH (assuming the September stress test doesn't do that already). I think you are wrong, BCH will gain only from an LN FAIL, not from a segwit theft. In example, I will never fall with bch, because I know, if blocksize is not limited, I will never be able to run a full node. And I think, if I can not run a full node it is better to simply use visa. Also I think a segwittheft coin will not survive for long time talking about immutability as I know technology will be improved a lot in the future and an immutable coin will have to upgrade to survive, so it can not really be immutable. A coin have to evolve. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on June 29, 2018, 01:32:01 PM I am the fool who is over here giving you fools one last warning. So you will have no one to blame but yourselves. Because I have been allowed to speak. Priceless :) How about this? Instead of giving us your warning over and over and over again, come back when anything you've ever said actually happens, you've been the same stuck record about the P2SH Jubilee since 2011, and reality proving you wrong every day for 6 years doesn't seem to dampen your enthusiasm. Just like your super secret killer cryptocoin design: you're all talk, and nothing ever happens. Do. Something. Real. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: locsta123 on June 29, 2018, 02:09:46 PM Well I think the OP is onto something to some extent we are at a crossroads right now where crypto could become mainstream there are many more big players in the game they don't outnumber the small players but they definitely out power the small guys (just like our current economic system)
I like POS but I also think it doesnt completely solve the decentralization issue although I think it makes it much more fair when it comes to distribution because anyone with any amount of money can stake coins the same can't be said for mining right now you will have to spend at least $1000+ to buy an asic miner to even put a dent in the mining pools. But that is also why I like CPU only mineable coins like zoin :) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on June 30, 2018, 06:44:23 AM But achow made a practical reply. Quote from: achow101 If segwit activates, any attempt to steal anyone's Bitcoin by stealing segwit outputs will be considered invalid and any blocks that contain said transactions will be invalid and thus will be a hard fork. With a hard fork, anything goes. Anyone can make a hard fork and confiscate anyone's coins on that fork, it is, after all, a change in consensus rules where you can make the consensus rules whatever you want. "The Real Bitcoin" is no different. In fact several forks have been made from Bitcoin which no one really cares about, and "The Real Bitcoin" will just be another one of those. If there is no economic activity and no users actually use a coin, it is worthless and no one will care about it. Currently ALL miners are signaling for segwit per the BIP 91 rules. No miners are using "The Real Bitcoin" and no major businesses, exchanges, or users are using it. In fact, the vast majority of users (including businesses and exchanges) and miners are supporting segwit. So sure, you could hard fork and steal coins spent in Segwit transactions, but no one would care because it would be a hard fork and it would just become another altcoin that no one ever thinks about. Also, you could just steal all P2SH coins now. P2SH was released after "The Real Bitcoin" made their fork. And it would get you more coins much sooner. But no one would care if you did. Miners are also incentivized to not hard fork and steal coins. Besides the fact that stealing coins means that they will be damaging the value of the chain they forked from, miners are also then taking the risk that the fork that they switched to will be completely worthless. It is far more profitable to continue to mine the chain which the majority of the community backs and will be using than it is to mine some fork which will likely be worthless with no users on that fork. There will be more transactions on that chain and more value with it as people are actually using it. Furthermore, any miner who did choose steal anyone's coins would come under significant criticism from everyone in the community and that would be terrible for their reputation. If talking about "game theory" would it not be against the self interest of the miners to "steal" Segwit outputs if they can do it? I believe achow101 is the mod here (presumably the same individual as you quoted). He has been very cordial and civil in his discussions which I appreciate and respect. Yet he was incorrect to conclude that Satoshi’s protocol is a hardfork from itself. He may have been convinced otherwise since he made that reply? Although apparently he is a Core contributor, so I don’t know if can change his opinion or if he can comment on it. I am not trying to pressure him. He presumably has to walk a tightrope because he is also a (n apparently upstanding and fair) mod here. Core soft forked. If Satoshi miners choose to take P2SH donations because they are ANYONECANSPEND in the Satoshi protocol, then if Core miners reject Satoshi’s protocol, then Core is the protocol that has forked off. I had already explained this point (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg40948767#msg40948767). I already read it. What would happen is a chain split. In the TRB chain all coins stored in a Segwit address can be stolen and all Lightning channels can be wiped out. In the main Bitcoin chain everything will be the same as if nothing has happened. We already know what your answer is on "But which chain would be followed by the economic majority and the miners?" I respect your opinion and I will leave it there. But I am confident the Bitcoin Core protocol will be followed by the economic majority and by most of the miners. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on June 30, 2018, 01:31:18 PM Although last few posts were interesting, I think the issue with SegWit and @anunymint's "Satoshi fork" proposal/speculation against SegWit is off-topic.
Forks are happening and will happen but the topic's question about PoW being doomed to centralization or not has remained open. Actually, @anunymint and I debated this subject indirectly in discussing my proposal for fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws in PoW (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0). Talking about centralization of bitcoin and cryptos is deceptively simple. A naive perception based on common sense can lead us to where OP has started this topic with: It is as Karl Marx described it, that in a national economy the big established players all tend to grow in power and size into a monopoly, and it is as we know it from the equally named board game "Monopoly" (picture) the player that owns a big share, of the total size early over time grows automaticallly bigger and bigger, creating ultimately a plutocratic society that creates not as many winners as possible but that seeks to create as many loosers as possible for the benefit and power of monopolistic and plutocratic or oligarchic few. That society might then be vastly influenced by those big players, media, legislation, elections etc. nothing published really matters anymore as the strings are pulled by forces that grew with the system and are now ruling it. Can this also happen for cryptocurrencies or more specific POW systems? Yes it is likely to happen and it is already observable, lets start: Tendencies to manipulate the media: I wrote an article about the systematic pump and dump schemes and the "bull calls" that are being issued now in the american cryptomedia (https://www.ccn.com/bullish-call-bitmex-chief-predicts-50000-btc-by-year-end) Until now we have the same naive story about Capitalism and its tendency toward forming oligarchies and monopolies, and nothing yet about PoW specifically. But suddenly, without any preliminary steps, OP continues Quote but it also reveals of a tendency to create vast and big influencing associations. Thinking that to the end, it is logically to understand that associations regarding hashpower in the worlds total POW system will be created out of interests to achieve certain economic goals, similar like caribbean pirates the worlds pow system might get its miner associations, which could hide their secretive coordinating core somewhere unknown and far away from legislation and police in an offshore sector. Such a secretive hashpower coordinating association will then for their reasons behave like a cancer, trying to feast on the smaller POW coins first, then grow in size so it can attack later the bigger ones. The profits from 51% attacks might even be a secondary goal, that delivers the profit, but the true goal being the destruction of trust which that particular POW system had in the first place. Take Verge as an example which lost a lot of trust and confidence after a 51% attack. According to OP (and his paw, @anunymint), PoW encourages/pushes for a tendency towards creating such 'associations' and no longer deserves to be understood and propagated as a decentralized post-capitalistic whatever alternative (monetary system). Instead Quote It would mean that a honorable POS system would get a chance to regain popularity again Op continues: Quote Our Fazit: The POW concept will get its huge pool shark that will haunt it, that's unavoidable and Bitcoin marketed as decentral will become central, but a quite low quality unpopular cryptocurrency that will stand for its unpopular ressource waste, caused by its core association of miners, bitcoin isn't made for the longterm, and its even more not made to enrich the collective. It is a zero sum game of its miner cartel against everyone else, using the mass media, and the illusion of decentrality. This is why I call this perception naive. It suffers from a shallow understanding of PoW that confuses the core idea with implementation. Bitcoin is nothing more than a variant of PoW, it is what OP, @anunymint and many people don't understand thoroughly and become disappointed and terrified when they experience the situation with pools, nicehash, ASICs, ... PoW as a consensus algorithm is based on objectivism, it requires people to consume energy and resources to vote on the state of the ledger proportionally. First of all, accusing PoW of having an 'unpopular resource waste' weakness is like accusing a car or an airplane of consuming energy and trying to invent a magical vehicle which is capable of doing work without consuming fuel. Bitcoin and its successors are commonly using Nakamoto's variant of PoW based on a winner-takes-all principal that makes them vulnerable to pooling attack ("creating hashpower associations" as Op calls it) because of their known flaws being mining variance and proximity premium. Although Satoshi Nakamoto has the privilege to be known as the first person who proposed PoW and the fist person who implemented it, he is not and shouldn't be considered as the last one who did it! PoW is not another simple technological breakthrough, it deserves to be understood as an evolutionary project and to be improved. Bitcoin is nothing more than a beta version. It is just an unfortunate that releasing a true operational version of bitcoin has been postponed so long and instead we have these Core guys who have neither the vision nor the courage necessary to do so. Instead they are ruining the code as much as possible by complicating it adding useless features and hacks and focusing on off-chain solutions ironically: you got no balls to improve the chain? go off-chain development baby, it is safe! I'm not here to discuss my proposal, but it is a real fact, it exists out there. Proof of Collaborative Work, PoCW is an example of how problems in Nakamoto's implementation of PoW can be approached and probably solved and how it is possible to de-incentivize people for 'creating associations'. Without pulling pressure, IOW without mining variance and proximity premium there is no mining centralization threat and the only thing OP and @anunymint will be left with is nothing more than general political economics theories about inevitability of cartels and trusts in modern capitalism which could be used everywhere and whenever by whoever in a bad mood and pessimistic approach to any technological or socio-economical phenomenon. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 01, 2018, 05:25:15 AM But I am confident the Bitcoin Core protocol will be followed by the economic majority and by most of the miners. Confident enough to hodl your BTC in Core addresses that begin with 3 instead of Satoshi legacy addresses that begin with 1? You have asked me many questions and I have graciously replied to many of them. I have now asked you only one question. Will you reply? Yes, I use Bech32 addresses for my main storage, and I also use Segwit addresses that start with a "3" for others. I believe many people are too. Quote Anunymint raises some good points. I am guessing similar to Peter Rizun. It points out a potential attack vector on segwit coins. Dr. Peter Rizun - SegWit Coins are not Bitcoins The video is worth watching even if you believe Segwit posses no risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY Rick Falkvinge has also made a video that said "Segwit can be reversed", which is impossible because there are 80% of total nodes that are Segwit compatible and accept Segwit blocks. If there was an attack to reverse Segwit, the network will hard fork and the chain will split into two. The main chain will behave like nothing has happened while the forked chain will reverse Segwit. But good luck in convincing everyone to use the forked chain. Quote Gregory Maxwell is a liar: Quote "Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- gmaxwell Ok. I respect your opinion. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 01, 2018, 09:58:08 AM @anunymint, @Wind_FURY you guys better take care of your anti-segwit fork issue in a dedicated topic, imo.
Actually, @anunymint and I debated this subject indirectly in discussing my proposal for fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws in PoW (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0). And readers should read my points there as linked, because your recapitulation here didn’t address my point that pools are largely (not totally) irrelevant to the issue of centralization because miners can move if they do not like a pool’s behavior, Saying that pools don't matter in this context, centralization of PoW, is the most weird thing ever. Yet, I'm not completely convinced about you being serious in saying that. After all OP is the one who started this topic by accusing PoW to be doomed to centralization because of 'associations', isn't he? Quote yet winner-take-all centralization remains in proof-of-work (no matter how it is restructured) because* the global elite capitalists have control over the $billion ASIC fabs and the hydropower electricity at-scale (which they can get for free and charge to the governments they control). Thus by being the lowest-cost miners behind the curtain of anonymity, the global elite will entirely control Bitcoin surreptitiously as they designed it to be. Period. As much as the predicate is false (PoW = winner-takes-all) your reasoning is irrelevant. ASICs are a challenge, no doubts, but a separate one. Ethereum is not 'ASICed' because of its memory hard algorithm and yet it is centralized by pools even more than bitcoin (only 3 pools control +50% Ethereum's total hashrate). *emphasis by me With or without ASICs, PoW is doomed to centralization because of pooling pressure flaw, as long as it is implemented as a winner-takes-all variant. Although bitcoin has not been overtaken by a 50%+1 attack (yet), pools are very powerful players in the ecosystem and there will be no future for bitcoin as a decentralized system with them, no improvements, no evolution. ASIC is completely a different problem. I've spent a considerable time to fight against the "inevitability of ASICs" discourse going that far to suggest a strategy for bitcoin to get rid of ASICs, but now I'm realizing that pools are far more important points of failure. So, please let remain focused on pools instead of losing the direction. Quote IOW total centralization of control over mining of Bitcoin is not total centralization of the economy built on Bitcoin. Now we have something to digest :)Bitcoin is meant to be a monetary system based on a public, decentralized ledger maintained by a large number of players who can not practically collude to do anything harmful against users of the system. Like any other monetary system, an economy is built around bitcoin. Although centralization of mining does not necessarily imply centralization of this economy, it is definitely a prohibitive factor. For traditional economies built around fiat currencies and national central banks, it has been understood that economic growth is directly related to the confidence the investors/entrepreneurs have to the system to function as it has been promised. In under-developed countries where central banks have less autonomy and follow the governments' thirst for money instead of keeping their promise for regulating the financial market, economies collapse overnight. Likewise, if bitcoin might fail to keep its promises like decentralization, security, immutability, anti-censorship, ... its economy would collapse not because of a stupid super-pool stealing funds but because of the sole fact of its failure to fulfil its promise. People won't wait for centralized mining to make a ridiculous move against them, they will just back-off whenever they feel it is not what they have invested in: a decentralized system. We have a handful of currencies managed and supervised centrally by a huge system and a network of well organized, disciplined organisations for decades: USD, Euro, Pound, Yen, etc. Banks mine these currencies transparently and keep our balances practically safe and secure and fees are not that high to be considered intolerable, ... so, why in the hell we should invest in bitcoin and build an economy when it is just another centralized system (based in China)? Quote Nevertheless I remain steadfast (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41253867#msg41253867) that proof-of-work can’t be restructured in any variant to provide true mathematical transaction volume scalability. Scalability is another separate issue too. Seriously @anunymint, isn't it better to remain focused? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 01, 2018, 10:06:57 AM If there was an attack to reverse Segwit, the network will hard fork and the chain will split into two. The I made a slight correction to your summary. Core will actually fork off from the original Satoshi version 0.5.4 protocol at that juncture. As a matter of correct definitions and semantics It's not a question of semantics. The chain with the most people behind it is Bitcoin. Anything else is an altcoin. You don't get to pick an arbitrary point in history and declare that "nothing beyond this point is the real Bitcoin", because that's not your sole decision to make. Again, 0.5.4 is an outdated client run by a small but vocal number of hardline fanatics. That's a speck in the wind compared to the combined will of an entire network of users all over the world who couldn't give two shits what you or MP thinks. The moment a fork occurs and 0.5.4 isn't compatible with what everyone else is running, 0.5.4 becomes the altcoin. They can have their Thiefcoin, the rest of us will ignore them and have Bitcoin. You don't decide what the "real Bitcoin" looks like. That's not how consensus works. You've been duped if you think otherwise. But then that's only natural, because that's what drinking the trilemma kool-aid does to you. But you forgot a very important point I made several times already and you continue to forget. That is those who hodl legacy addresses that begin with 1 will receive both real Bitcoin tokens and Core tokens. Whereas those who hodl in addresses that begin with 3 will receive only Core tokens. Even if you support Core, you would want the real Bitcoin tokens so you could sell them and contribute to fighting against it and use the proceeds to buy Core tokens. But to do that, you must forsake SegWit in the interim time. You may have noticed that any fork which proposes a fundamental change to the founding principles doesn't even get off the ground. Your fork would be held in the same esteem as forks that propose raising the 21 million supply, bringing "lost" coins back into circulation, anything to do with blacklisting certain addresses. People who appreciate Bitcoin for what it is don't give those projects the slightest bit of notice. They're irrelevant. As is Thiefcoin. If you have coins held in SegWit addresses, you would indeed fight against the 0.5.4 chain, but you wouldn't do it by buying 0.5.4 coins to dump them. It would be contrary to your own financial well being to give even the slightest hint of recognition to the chain trying to steal from you. The best way to combat a chain like that (which is clearly an affront to the underlying principles of property ownership and crypto in general), would naturally be to tell everyone to ignore the 0.5.4 chain completely and leave it to rot in the gutter. There wouldn't be an actual economy on that chain and it wouldn't be sustainable. So all that would remain is a niche blockchain where the sole purpose is to effectively quarantine the insane from the rest of society. As such, I eagerly await your fork and you disappearing off to the land of make-believe to play with the other inmates in the asylum. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on July 01, 2018, 09:13:16 PM It's fucking amazing how you always respond by entirely ignoring the key sentences I already wrote that refute what you replied... It's even more amazing that you keep dodging the key point under the weight of your ever bloviated responses 4.3 million BTC in P2SH addresses. Why aren't the miners forking and "donating" it to themselves in the fork? Answer the question Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 01, 2018, 09:40:14 PM You may have noticed that any fork which proposes a fundamental change to the founding principles doesn't even get off the ground. Your fork would be held in the same esteem as forks that propose raising the 21 million supply, bringing "lost" coins back into circulation, anything to do with blacklisting certain addresses. People who appreciate Bitcoin for what it is don't give those projects the slightest bit of notice. They're irrelevant. As is Thiefcoin. Correct that Core is forking off from Satoshi’s protocol and causing the security of Bitcoin to become weakened and fooling users into issuing ANYONECANSPEND transaction outputs. Thus the scammer Core altcoin will then finally be seen objectively by the formerly deluded bunny rabbits as a Thiefcoin by all users who lost their real Bitcoin when the real Bitcoin goes very high in price and the Core altcoin crashes towards 0 BTC. Satoshi's protocol can’t fork off from itself. It is actively running now on the current BTC block chain. When the booty piles up, the Satoshi miners will take the donations and then Core will fork off. And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority. And because the miners will be sharing the proceeds of the donations with the wealthy. You have no greater claim to what Satoshi's vision was than anyone else does. You can keep calling 0.5.4 "Satoshi's protocol" all you like, but that doesn't give it any sort of special status or privilege. No one in their right mind is going to use it. It exists just for the crazed fundamentalists. If Bitcoin went to zero, the 0.5.4 chain (assuming it ever exists) would go with it. People would simply abandon Bitcoin altogether because the project has clearly failed if any of this were to occur. There's no conceivable way they would reward a bunch of isolated headcases who clearly have no respect for property rights, particularly if it cost them money to do so. If you think they would, not only does it show your game theory needs some serious work, but also that your brain is so "special" that you are totally incapable of understanding how normal human beings behave. Literally the only reason you believe you're right about this is that your ego is beyond measure. You think so highly of yourself that, in your mind, there's no other outcome possible than the masses bending to your glorious vision. If you were to briefly climb out of your own posterior for just a moment and observe the world for what it is, you might realise that it's not remotely plausible for any of your vivid fantasies to come to fruition. Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Are you their new spokesperson or something? Is your presence here solely to promote that loony bin because they're short on patients and need some fresh volunteers to have themselves committed? Are the poor deluded souls getting lonely over there? Aww, bless. If they offer you the lobotomy, I suggest you take it. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 01, 2018, 10:44:57 PM Correct that Core is forking off from Satoshi’s protocol and causing the security of Bitcoin to become weakened and fooling users into issuing ANYONECANSPEND transaction outputs. Thus the scammer Core altcoin will then finally be seen objectively by the formerly deluded bunny rabbits as a Thiefcoin by all users who lost their real Bitcoin (http://thebitcoin.foundation/) when the real Bitcoin goes very high in price and the Core altcoin crashes towards 0 BTC. You don't consider that the Bitcoin Core 0.16 is a better coin than what it was in 2012. And it will be better when things like shnorr and mast will be implemented. No one need a non spendable coin. No multisig means you can not buy anything from anonymous. No multisig means you have to trust. WoT means you are not anonymous, If you are not anonymous you can be banned and censored. If you have to be trusted and not anonymous you don't need a blockchain. When I signed for bitcoin I knew it can be replaced by a better coin, p2sh was a better coin, segwit is a better coin, I hope some day we will have shnorr and mast and I hope it will be better. Miner oligarchy will fail because they are anonymous, they have to be anonymous or someone with guns and missiles can destroy their precious farms and they end up fucked. Note it is on my TODO list to more thoroughly research P2SH transactions that are not SegWit transactions. Perhaps I am mistaken about them being ANYONECANSPEND if they’re not SegWit. I need research that after sleeping. https://programmingblockchain.gitbooks.io/programmingblockchain/content/other_types_of_ownership/p2wsh_pay_to_witness_script_hash.htmlTitle: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 01, 2018, 11:09:14 PM Then maybe the Core altcoin is for you, as long as you prefer to have altcoin that is much lower in value Bitcoin. You clearly presume that those experimental features are more important to the wealthy than immutability and security, because otherwise you would not presume the features they do not want are the better coin. But I know they prefer immutability and security. And they decide which coin will be sold off and collapse in price and thus not be the better coin. Oligarchies are often anonymous to outsiders. And they communicate privately because they have an economic incentive to do so. No, they have economic incentives to fisically destroy concurrent farms or energy sources.Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 01, 2018, 11:17:39 PM there's no other outcome possible than the masses bending to your glorious vision Did you already forget that I pointed out to you in my prior reply to you, that in Bitcoin the masses do not get a vote? Of course they don't get a "vote". That's not how Bitcoin works. We've surpassed the primitive concept of voting: Who wants a vote? A vote is just the act of asking for someone's permission, masquerading as freedom. Plus, when voting, you're usually only selecting someone to speak for you, in effect surrendering your freedom. Screw that. Bitcoin (or at least, crypto in general) is better than any democracy. It's real freedom. You just do stuff and see if people then agree. You don't vote on it or wait for someone in power to say it's okay. Code what you like, run what you like. You'll be matched up with people who agree with you and you'll build a blockchain together. Everyone gets what they think they want while market forces and competition sort it all out in the end. Only the most successful chain with the most economic activity and most proof of work gets to be called Bitcoin. If people find their chain isn't as successful as others, it's up to them to build on it and make it better, or resign themselves to transacting with an altcoin and hope it has sufficient value to be worth their time. If it's not worth it, go back to the better chain. There are literally no barriers to stop you, despite what some here might say. That's all that's happening here. People overreact and get all dramatic about it. But it's just people with different visions of what's best, doing their own thing. No voting required. And it's good for Bitcoin (again, despite what some here might say). Bitcoin will naturally adapt and grow stronger by taking the best code from the open market at any given time. And ultimately, users still decide what that code is, there's just no point in having a stupid vote about it. Democracy should aspire to be more like Bitcoin, not the other way around. Remember that voting is always based on what people (and usually corrupt liars at that) say they're going to do. And you have to trust them to do it when you vote for them. You don't get any guarantees. You might not get what you voted for even if the person or party you vote for win. Bitcoin is better than that. You make an informed decision based on what has actually been made. There's no trust involved. It's right there for you to see it all in black and white. No surprises, no u-turns, no failure to enact a policy because the opposition party prevented it. If there's anything in the code you don't like, you don't have to run it. Name one vote in history that ever achieved that feat. Voting has no place here. It's better without it. People place far too much emphasis on the supposed panacea of voting. At best, voting for an elected representative is a paltry impersonation of democracy. When you stop and think about it, it's not really freedom at all if you need to have the permission of someone in authority to have an election in the first place. And having to select someone from a predetermined list of candidates isn't freedom either. Neither is votes being aggregated and grouped by arbitrary lines on a map, which those in authority can redraw to sway the result. Once your elected representative speaks for you, they have all the freedom, you just surrendered your freedom to them. Voting is based on what people claim they're going to do, but once the voting has finished, how many times do the election pledges actually come to fruition? There's no guarantee of getting the things you believed you were voting for even when your preferred candidate wins. There's also little to prevent "lobbying", otherwise known as "corruption", so money will always influence policy far more than any vote ever will. No one gets a "vote". But what they do get is total freedom and self-determination. They're not going to surrender that by following a chain that would steal from them and only serve the interests of a few self-obsessed elitists. Go ahead and build your 0.5.4 chain. See who takes part. I normally consider it ill-conceived to preempt what the market will do, but I think it's safe to say they won't follow that abomination of a chain. Just like they won't follow a "Bitcoin" chain with blacklisting or an increased supply above 21 million. You clearly perceive immutability as Bitcoin's most important aspect, but others feel that decentralisation is the more important quality (and would also argue we haven't sacrificed immutability anyway). I don't know how you expect to maintain a decentralised system when the only participants are the limited number of fruitcakes running the 0.5.4 client. You can't have a decentralised oligarchy, it's self-contradictory. Users won't support a system that doesn't support them and your chain won't survive economically without users. Network effects have a tremendous impact on value and utility. How do you propose your 0.5.4 chain will amass value and utility if only a few zealous cultists are using it? Keep dreaming. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 01, 2018, 11:35:44 PM You can't have a decentralised oligarchy, it's self-contradictory. Users won't support a system that doesn't support them and your chain won't survive economically without users. Network effects have a tremendous impact on value and utility. How do you propose your 0.5.4 chain will amass value and utility if only a few zealous cultists are using it? Keep dreaming. Oligarchy don't need free users. They only need poor slaves.Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 01, 2018, 11:45:47 PM No one gets a "vote". But what they do get is total freedom and self-determination. They're not going to surrender that by following a chain that would steal from them and only serve the interests of a few self-obsessed elitists. They do not matter. We do not want them on the reserve currency anyway. Wrong. You don't matter. Speck in the wind, remember (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.msg41271922#msg41271922)? Bitcoin was designed to disrupt the arrogance and folly of the world's banking oligarchs, not create a bunch of new (decidedly psychotic and egomaniacal) banking oligarchs. The minority do not decide what Bitcoin is and you are evidently very much in the minority here. Also, all of this is largely irrelevant anyway, since we're talking about Schrödinger's Thiefcoin. We won't know you're wrong 'til someone does it and they're never going to. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 01, 2018, 11:56:57 PM It is absolutely guaranteed that the SegWit taking will happen. The only unknown is the timing. Miners will need a lot of hashrate, or an orphaning war will begin and all of them will lose a lot of money.Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 02, 2018, 12:10:48 AM It's fucking amazing how you always respond by entirely ignoring the key sentences I already wrote that refute what you replied... ASIC is completely a different problem. I've spent a considerable time to fight against the "inevitability of ASICs" discourse going that far to suggest a strategy for bitcoin to get rid of ASICs And you completely ignored the point I made about getting electricity for free. And if mining isn’t uber profitable for them, then it wouldn’t be profitable for anyone, because they will always be the lowest cost miners. However I do think they are less profitable than those who use their Bitcoin for more lucrative investments and thus the global elite are actually not a threat. IOW, all they can really do is enforce the Nash equilibrium. They can’t actually do any malfeasance and this is why Bitcoin is a good approximation to John Nash’s Ideal Money manifesto. IOW total centralization of control over mining of Bitcoin is not total centralization of the economy built on Bitcoin. For traditional economies built around fiat currencies and national central banks, it has been understood that economic growth is directly related to the confidence the investors/entrepreneurs have to the system to function as it has been promised. Seriously @anunymint, isn't it better to remain focused? Seriously could digest all the concepts at one time or is your brain incapable of assimilating information. I have put you on Ignore. I will not be replying to anymore of your incorrect replies. You’re a time waster. Again? ;D You are mad with me because I didn't reply to your melancholic comments about elites on the top of the food chain and how you feel safe in hands of them because of Nash's equilibrium? (I'm sure you are kidding about free electricity) Dude, I just tried not to make you ashamed, in my culture, we don't push on the competitors wounds and weaknesses. This melancholy with 1% shit, it is your weakness, believe me. But apparently, you want it, So, here you are: You think we are fools and you are so smart because you have discovered that wealthy is powerful and can invest more and economy of scale helps it to outperform masses and,... but I think you are not smart enough to understand that it is not a "discovery" for last 200 years or so, this story has been told ever and ever and yet people are fighting and innovating to keep things more balanced and safe. You think bitcoin is a conspiracy project for centralizing financial system even more and we are a bunch of childs and noobs who are being manipulated by crypto media (the think tank's PR).? Dude, these ideas are too divergent to be discussed in a crypto forum, don't you get it? Aren't you smart enough to understand your divergence and find a community with a more similar discourse with yours and run your campaign there? Bitcoin is about decentralization and bitcointalk is a place to discuss how we can achieve this goal. We have hard times and a long road ahead? No worries, we try more and take our shot. Is it that hard to understand? We have no time to argue with neo-nazists or neo-cons or neo-f*kers, whatever about the inevitability of oligarchism, we are busy building a decentralized world and guess what? We have started from the heart and the blood: banking system and money! So, try to catch up with the trend and participate in discussions productively or at least don't push people to mock at your ultra right understanding of bitcoin's agenda. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 02, 2018, 12:44:12 AM Dude, these ideas are too divergent to be discussed in a crypto forum, don't you get it? Aren't you smart enough to understand your divergence and find a community with a more similar discourse with yours and run your campaign there? Bitcoin is about decentralization and bitcointalk is a place to discuss how we can achieve this goal. We have hard times and a long road ahead? No worries, we try more and take our shot. Is it that hard to understand? You can not find solutions if you don't study every problem deeply. But of course this talk is more political than technical. I hope anunymint explained his point of view, and if you think evil, it is not so absurd. That's an old discussion between capitalists and socialists. Anunymint is talking like a socialist trying to discredit the austrian school. I'm still at an early stage in studying that so I try to not comment about that. For general culture I will leave a link: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly If you mean that Satoshi miners will compete with each other to mine the donations by rewinding each other’s chains, yeah I agree that might be possible if the hashrate is too low. But a decent amount (e.g. 20%) much lower than 50% will be enough to cause other miners to want to join that chain and not fight it, because for example how many miners have 20% of the hashrate. Thus a Schelling point forms and that 10% or 20% quickly swells and becomes irreversible. We know who that large miner will be: Bitmain. I'm not sure about this, as you say miners talk privately, and I don't think they will like if only Bitmain will keep all the booty. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 02, 2018, 01:08:39 AM You can not find solutions if you don't study every problem deeply. Methodologically speaking, you are wrong here. Not every argument deserves a dialogue. A dialogue can take place just when compatible discourses are involved. In this context, saying that bitcoin is doomed to centralization because monopolies and oligarchies are inevitable is just unproductive and useless and we don't need to spend our valuable time to disprove it. On the contrary, engaging in such a melancholic discussion gives ideas like this a credit that they don't deserve, even if you manage to disprove them. Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 02, 2018, 03:10:17 AM Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 02, 2018, 05:43:17 AM If there was an attack to reverse Segwit, the network will hard fork and the chain will split into two. The I made a slight correction to your summary. Core will actually fork off from the original Satoshi version 0.5.4 protocol (http://thebitcoin.foundation/) at that juncture. As a matter of correct definitions and semantics, the Satoshi protocol cannot fork off from itself. It was first, so all hard forks are the later thing forking off from the original thing. Otherwise the quoted is now correct. And that is what I have been explaining. Haha, I respect your opinion, and I believe you also respect mine. Plus all I can say to that is "OK" and leave it. Quote But you forgot a very important point I made several times already and you continue to forget. That is those who hodl legacy addresses that begin with 1 will receive both real Bitcoin tokens and Core tokens. Whereas those who hodl in addresses that begin with 3 will receive only Core tokens. Even if you support Core, you would want the real Bitcoin (http://thebitcoin.foundation/) tokens so you could sell them and contribute to fighting against it and use the proceeds to buy Core tokens. But to do that, you must forsake SegWit in the interim time. This proves that SegWit has no Schelling point. That is reminding of "Pascal's Wager". I believe it applies to that as well. It might be advisable to transfer cold storage coins to a legacy address but continue to use Segwit for active hot wallets. But that's where it ends because it does not automatically mean the non-Segwit chain will be followed by the economic majority and most the the miners. There are 80% of Segwit compatible nodes in total that are enforcing the rules, remember that. Quote Read how others reasoned about and explained that last point: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41252415#msg41252415 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41211650#msg41211650 Whether you want Core or real Bitcoin (http://thebitcoin.foundation/) tokens is your own prerogative. But the wise men understand that democracy is a clusterfuck. I re-explained that point yet again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41253256#msg41253256 Ok. @anunymint, @Wind_FURY you guys better take care of your anti-segwit fork issue in a dedicated topic, imo. Sorry. This will be the last one before I make a new thread. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 02, 2018, 08:55:19 AM Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice. The reference you've provided, On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward, has nothing against decentralization as a design principle, and yet if it was the case, we wouldn't discuss it in this forum. My point is, decentralization as an ultimate agenda, is the only thing we have in common in the crypto ecosystem, it is the cause. Without decentralization we have nothing to share and to make a dialog about. Questioning decentralization's relevance or importance for an alternative monetary system, announcing it an absurd impossible design target, is kinda cheating and turning the table on other players, what losers usually do. It is fair to ask questions about how and in what degree bitcoin has achieved decentralization and how it can be improved/evolved to reach to a better (more decentralized) state but ideologically challenging the core concept and saying that we are safer in the hands of few elites in the top of the food chain? No! It is not fair. It is cheating in the most ridiculous way a bitcointalk member could ever do it ;D Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 02, 2018, 11:40:32 AM You can keep calling 0.5.4 "Satoshi's protocol" all you like, but that doesn't give it any sort of special status or privilege. Incorrect: I changed my mind. 0.5.1 is the one true Bitcoin. All transactions and transfers after 0.5.1 are invalid. Nonsense trolling. Bitcoin version history (https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history) indicates: v0.6.0 (https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.6.0) = beginning of egregious Core centralization cruft hijacking including the autoupdate so they can sneak their scamware onto n00bs’ nodes. I’m not sure if You have convinced me. I need to run the version from November 2010 when Satoshi was still involved. What version was that? Because that’s obviously the one true Bitcoin. Sorry guys any transactions after 2010 are invalid. Anyone that says otherwise is just a Core shill. You fail to comprehend my prior post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41257900#msg41257900). Those later versions of Satoshi’s protocol do not add any ANYONECANSPEND transactions, and thus even if you run an earlier version, your node will NOT accept as donations any transactions created with a later version of Satoshi’s client. You’re trolling because you lack technological understanding of the issue at hand. You're actually shitting up the Wall Observer thread with this nonsense too? You've got some brass, I'll give you that. No clue, mind, but definitely some brass. And thank you for linking in HairyMaclairy's more compelling argument. Troll or not, it demonstrates how far gone you really are. Ultimately, whatever FUD you might spread about ANYONECANSPEND, none of it applies in the real world unless you completely disregard the alignment of incentives (or come up with your own warped interpretation of it). My assumptions were correct. Let’s review each transaction type. Yeah, great, "miners can take these". We get it. Now pay attention for once. I could theoretically fork tomorrow with a version of "Bitcoin" that lets me steal any and all transaction types. According to you, the Schelling Point would be overwhelming (I'd start calling it the "Shelby Point", because it clearly isn't a Shelling Point, but I suspect your colossal ego would enjoy that). Look at all that booty. All ~17 million coins in circulation and they're all mine. I can take these. That means I'm the new wealthy elite now. I've made sure it's "immutable" now that I've stolen it, too. No more SegWit. So... what's the reason you're going to provide me with that you or anyone else should follow my chain, where I've stolen all the money? Who's going to legitimise this chain by running this code? Who's going to mine this coin? Since I know you won't be able to provide an answer for that, let's make it clear that absolutely no one would follow that obscenity of a chain. Not a single sane and rational person would recognise that as Bitcoin. I'd be the only one using it. The only person running the code. No one apart from me would be mining it. Which suddenly makes my ~17 million tokens completely worthless. Equally as worthless as your 0.5.4 tokens would be if anyone was stupid enough to steal SegWit coins. Which is why it's not going to be worth their time or effort. You don't actually end up holding tokens that have value or utility. Which is why it's never going to happen. A chain is only as "immutable" as consensus permits it to be. If you break consensus, you also break immutability. It's just code, after all. What matters is the people who freely choose to run the code. If enough of them agree that SegWit coins are immutable, then they're immutable. They can only be stolen if people run the code that allows them to be stolen. People would ignore the worthless 0.5.4 chain no matter how many times you call Core the fork and insist your outdated software is the real one. 0.5.4 would be seen as an obscure novelty at best. Barely even a footnote for the history books. All the non-crazy people will still have a chain where SegWit coins can't get stolen. If it's inevitable, please sell all your BTC, assuming you even have any and aren't just here as a pathetic no-coiner troll (which seems far more likely than any Bitcoin doomsday scenario you've ever come up with), for 0.5.4 when it happens. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 02, 2018, 01:43:21 PM I try to be cordial, civil, and patient but when I need to repeat the same point 16 times that I already stated 16 times, I have to wonder about the IQ of the reader. Here was the most recent instance where I explained that the economic majority will use the real Bitcoin reserve currency, not the 80% of the population masses who will as usual be debt slaves: And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority. because Bitcoin is a reserve currency and the power-law distribution of wealth means the top 1% control 34+% of the economic pie and the top 20% control 80+% of the economic pie. So the 1% ($billionaires) lead the 20% ($millionaires) who follow because they don’t want to lose their wealth. If the top 20% think it's in their best interests to leave the actual economy and have 100% of nothing, best of luck to 'em. Again, a small number of wealthy elites does not constitute a functional economy. If they want to live in an isolated, incompatible bubble with no one else in it, their system won't work, simply because it's built on the backs of the less wealthy (http://gag.fm/uploads/posts/t/l-14124.jpg). The reason they became millionaires and billionaires in the first place is because money flows to the top of the pyramid. It can't do that if the masses are using different money. The wealthy need the proles to feed off. They always have and always will. That's how social class structure works. There is no denying this fact. The middle class will love you for it, though. They'll be the new top of the food chain if you want to Darwin-award yourself onto the endangered species list through sheer abject stupidity. Be my guest and do it now. Sooner the better. http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/asch.png Let's make it clear that you’re an idiot who will lose all his real Bitcoin Nope, I'll just lose some of my 0.5.4 worthless Thiefcoins. Just like I'd lose some of my coins on that proposed fork where they decided that coins that haven't moved in 3+ years go back into circulation. It's not Bitcoin, so IDGAF. Again, it's not an economic majority if you can't actually maintain an economy. Enjoy your 100% of zero. //EDIT: Also, you better tell the 0.5.4 maintainers they've probably got some work to do (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4587836.0). Guess it'll be 0.5.5 now? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: goddog on July 02, 2018, 02:35:32 PM You have the causality transposed. The wealthy decide which money the masses use, not vice versa. When the masses forkoff, they eat mud and hyperinflate their currency. Study the history of socialism such as the Wiemar Republic. When wealthy will dump all their segwit coin they will lose them, I will buy all for cheap and I will be the new wealthy imperor :-P Show me a way to implement a trustless 2nd layer using trb and I will give it a chance. But no second layer means gold or segwit coins are better currencies and store of value so market will go that way. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on July 02, 2018, 07:10:56 PM Remember (unlike the SegWit) the P2SH can only be taken as donations when they are spent. Also presumably the miners would want to maximize their donations per block and would wait for the level of transactions being spent per block to reach some peak. Why start now when the SegWit crapola is just starting to get momentum. Much better to let all the bunny rabbits become comfortable, overly confident, and feel safe inside the designated killing corral. Again you're changing your argument This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not. In fact, the same would be true of Segwit too. And most importantly block rewards will all invariably be tainted with such outputs, the fees will very likely always have P2SH or Segwit history (and are an inextricable part of the block subsidy output). Remind us why miners are going to back this "attack" lol :D Honestly, it's impossible you really believe this, and with your long long long history of trolling Bitcointalk... but of course I don't expect the effluent to stop flowing lol Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 04, 2018, 08:06:31 AM Remember (unlike the SegWit) the P2SH can only be taken as donations when they are spent. Also presumably the miners would want to maximize their donations per block and would wait for the level of transactions being spent per block to reach some peak. Why start now when the SegWit crapola is just starting to get momentum. Much better to let all the bunny rabbits become comfortable, overly confident, and feel safe inside the designated killing corral. Again you're changing your argument Nope. It’s only your technological ignorance that continues to twist your misunderstandings into knots. And frankly it’s becoming redundant for me to continue to refute all the various misunderstandings of n00bs, especially when it basically involves repeating what I had already written in my archive of posts. This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not. This was refuted many times already. The Satoshi miners will not (at least not significantly) rewind the chain when they start taking the donations (because of the game theory they would be fighting against wherein another set of Satoshi miners could mine later in the chain and have a proof-of-work lead). Thusly, if current UTXO is in a legacy address (i.e. that begins with a 1 not a 3) before the hardfork begins, then the hodler of (the private key for) those legacy addresses will receive tokens on both chains (Satoshi and Core). Whereas, the hodler of Core addresses (i.e. that begins with a 3 not a 1) will only receive Core chain tokens and lose their Satoshi chain tokens. Yes yes Segwit can be reversed but only for the TRB fork, chain split, that does not follow the rules enforced by 80% of total nodes in the network that are Segwit compatible.TRB will be in its own blockchain where miners can steal coins in Segwit addresses and wipe out the Lightning channels. We already get it. Good luck to that fork. I hope that the market and the users will value it more than Bitcoin so you can leave in peace. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 04, 2018, 01:25:04 PM The Satoshi protocol can’t fork off. It is the extant protocol, so it can’t fork itself. The Core protocol is soft-to-be-hard-forking. This has been exhaustively explained to you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). And you can keep exhaustively explaining it wrong all you like, but no one is going to agree with you. The market decides what the extant protocol is. Not you, not the 0.5.4 users. It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up. If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork. No amount of egotistical belligerence is going to change that. No amount of calling it "Satoshi’s client" is going to change that. If pigs fly and this attack happens, I fully welcome your "I-told-you-so". Until then, give it a rest already. I hope we are done with this discussion. Please stop pestering me. You are free to lose all your Bitcoins and hodl Bitcons instead. Just leave me out of your stupid nonsense. You started this Thiefcoin discussion, you can stop any time you wish. If you keep posting lunacy then you prompt us to reply and tell you why what you're saying is lunacy. Ball's in your court, feel free to leave any time. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Carlton Banks on July 04, 2018, 02:00:51 PM It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up. If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork. In a way he's right (a soft fork is still a fork), but that's not what matters. People don't care about the purity of technical details, they care about the utility of the coin (and thence the capabilities that the technical details give them when using the coin). It doesn't matter if Bitcoin is a fork of it's former self, forks that are considered to improve the coin can expect to be welcomed, whereas forks that make the coin worse (such as Anonymint is suggesting) are not. The alternative is to cancel a currency's development every time a fork is required to make progress or fix a bug, and start a new coin from scratch including the new idea. That's obviously untenable. anyway, you're making him angry now (and there's no progress, there was never any chance of a productive dialogue anyway). It should be pretty clear by now that Anonymint is simply exploiting the mechanics of the soft fork concept for the sake of a FUD based argument, and you can't do much better than demonstrating just that alone in these circumstances Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 04, 2018, 06:25:08 PM @anunimint
Hodling one Million bitcoins does not make you wealthy. You can not buy a tower from Trump using your coins and it is not because of SEC or IRS (Trump would figure it out), because Trump won't accept btc and you can not dump your coins in Coinbase crashing the market and your assets. This "market cap" index is just an index, we are fooling people with it to sell our coins, not to fool ourselves ;D So, your assumption about power law distribution of coins and its resembling of the distribution of wealth in the society is false. If such an anti-segwit fork or back trace might happen, it won't be the coin owners' choice to appreciate which chain more, it would be Trump's (and his billionaire paws') choice. Bitcoin is not an established currency (or global reserve) it is just bitcoin, it needs appreciation by people who mostly are out of the ecosystem and are freshly joining. Even for an established currency, one can not deduct distribution curve of wealth from distribution curve of money. Money is a device for mechanization of wealth and not the wealth itself. I think your suggestion about BIG coin hodlers being able to dictate their conspiracy to the society is terribly wrong and you should reconsider. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 04, 2018, 08:32:01 PM Hodling one Million bitcoins does not make you wealthy. You can not buy a tower from Trump using your coins and it is not because of SEC or IRS (Trump would figure it out), because Trump won't accept btc and you can not dump your coins in Coinbase crashing the market and your assets. The liquidity and float issue applies to Trump also. He can’t sell all his properties instantly either. On the contrary, Mt Gox trustee ruined the market by rumors about dumping 50K bitcoin or so, total "market cap" (joke) of bitcoin dropped almost 100 billions because a stupid bureaucrat decided to move 50K bitcoins from a cold wallet! Understand? Not selling, just moving coins and spreading rumors about the possibility of a sell off. And you wanna convince us that there are big whales on the top of the pyramid that can decide about everything! They can't decide about their coins to be moved around yet, who GAS to what they say about the legit bitcoin? Quote If such an anti-segwit fork or back trace might happen, it won't be the coin owners' choice to appreciate which chain more, it would be Trump's (and his billionaire paws') choice. I have no fucking idea why you think the wealthy from outside crypto, if they decided to get involved with crypto, would not consult with other expert whales in crypto, so they don’t make the dumb mistake of buying the Core altcoin and losing 4/5ths of the investment. Some more of that hair-brained illogical brain of yours. Quote So, your assumption about power law distribution of coins and its resembling of the distribution of wealth in the society is false. Stop slobbering all over yourself:Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 04, 2018, 08:35:42 PM @anunymint
Yet I do agree with you that SegWit is a disaster and we have to do something about it, not by committing robbery tho. Firstly I don't believe in SegWit because it is obfuscating and complicating the code. For a sensitive, mission critical software like bitcoin, it is a huge drawback. I've been always against such programming tricks no matter how "brilliant" they may look like. As a programmer I don't GAS when a junior hacker comes with such a "soft" hack idea to add a feature or fix a vulnerability for a system and when it is about something like bitcoin, well, I just become frustrated. I mean it is so stupid, isn't it? instead of a decent improvement based on known software engineering principles including readability and maintainability, complicating and ruining the code. Core guys are not stupid, they are playing their own game with their own incentives, they are monopolizing development process by obfuscating the code and complicating the protocol. Lightning Network is much worse, it is a second layer protocol and second layer protocols are the worst thing can ever happen to a public domain software. They are responsible for alienation of people from the system. LN puts bitcoin in danger not because of bugs or its ridiculous choice of recurring transactions for its service, no, it is dangerous for being an exemplary instance of upcoming second layer protocols which will put people in the same misery they have with the Internet already, being alienated of it, having no clue about its decentralized nature and trapped in stupid services that threaten their privacy and security and every single precious thing they got. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: ehiozuwa on July 04, 2018, 08:43:06 PM Gone are the days when individuals actually have a say in the way things are done,now so much power is being concentrated in hands of just a few who have the means.POW inevitably led to centralization and thus manipulation
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Cybrtoken on July 04, 2018, 08:43:51 PM WOW look at that ..
Satoshi's protocol can’t fork off from itself. It is actively running now on the current BTC block chain. When the booty piles up, the Satoshi miners will take the donations and then Core will fork off. And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority. And because the miners will be sharing the proceeds of the donations with the wealthy. As you point out, without immutability there is no security as even Peter Todd recently mused about if had his choice he would want to a perpetual inflation instead of 21 million coins. Core is mutability. Satoshi protocol is immutability. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 04, 2018, 08:45:11 PM I’m just exhausted of repeating the same points over and over again when someone fails to assimilate and disingenuously twists the debate. Your idea of a "debate" is that everyone has to accept your insane doomsday theories as fact. The onus is on you to provide a compelling argument. You have failed. Maybe stop repeating the same drivel if it's clearly proving ineffective. We assimilate what you're saying just fine. You don't assimilate that we still think you're unhinged and your words carry all the weight of someone who wriggled out of their straightjacket and scrawled some nonsense on the wall in their own excrement. Maybe I need to point out again the sheer volume of 'The end is nigh', 'The sky is falling', 'The anonymint who cried wolf' FUD BS you've spouted in the past that turned out to be nothing other than a fevered dream on your part. You have ZERO credibility. You are synonymous with FUD at its most ludicrous peaks. If I don't believe what you're telling me, you only have yourself to blame for that. Gresham’s law assures us that the reserve currency will be driven out-of-circulation. TPS scalable stuff should be in altcoins, fiats, and what not. The reserve currency doesn’t need that crap. It needs security, immutability, and to not lose 4/5ths of its value as will happen to the Core altcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002) because it is bad money which drives good money out-of-circulation. People have also used Gresham's law to "assure us" that all of Bitcoin will die (https://smilingdavesblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/why-greshams-law-means-the-death-of-bitcoin/), not just the particular "brand" of code you've taken a personal disliking to. I don't give their argument any greater credence than yours. Again, debate does not mean we have to automatically believe your far-fetched premise as fact. Your argument is in no way, shape or form convincing. Troll harder. It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up. Actually it matters because Core and its shills such as yourself [snip] Also Anonymint: Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema <cough>hypocrite</cough> Also, I don't know what forums you've been reading, but many of the most vociferous supporters of Core hate my guts and think I'm some sort of Communist. I don't think they'd appreciate me being lumped in with them, heh. If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork. Liar. It has been exhaustively explained that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4588992.0#msg41475354) the number non-mining full nodes being online is basically irrelevant. I'm sure from the perspective of a crazy person, you might genuinely believe I'm lying. Just like I'd be lying if I said "the sky is blue", when you clearly perceive it to be on fire and hurtling towards us at an alarming rate because your mind is unwell. Nodes will only become irrelevant when we stop running them, which incidentally, isn't happening. So best of luck with your continued tirade, because it isn't having the desired effect. You would certainly like nodes to be irrelevant because that would suit your narrative. Which, for the briefest moments of considering the possibility you aren't insane, could ultimately be the basis of your FUD. You don't like SegWit, so you tell people there's a vulnerability with it. You try to convince them it's not safe to use in an attempt to diminish it. You don't like the fact that full nodes clearly do enforce the will of a supermajority of network users, so you claim nodes are irrelevant. So if your arguments aren't insane, then they're deliberately intended to weaken the aspects of Bitcoin that you don't personally agree with. I'll leave it to the other readers of the thread to decide if you're crazy or simply malicious. I think most of them should have a pretty solid opinion by now. anyway, you're making him angry now Apparently it's what I'm good at. ;) (and there's no progress, there was never any chance of a productive dialogue anyway). It should be pretty clear by now that Anonymint is simply exploiting the mechanics of the soft fork concept for the sake of a FUD based argument, and you can't do much better than demonstrating just that alone in these circumstances Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop. It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time. Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway. I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 04, 2018, 10:42:05 PM Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop. It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time. Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway. I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect. No! Sorry but you can't give any credit to SegWit by refuting @anunymint's hypothetical attack. SegWit and LN are the worst things happened to bitcoin not because of vulnerabilities guys like him suggest or the possibility of a crazy fork in the name of Satoshi. SegWit is evil because of its complexity and anomaly in design and Ln is evil because, besides its dependency on SW and its stupid target service(recurring transactions), it is a second layer protocol. As of SW, Bitcoin deserves more! Its code shouldn't be obfuscated and ruined with such a childish mind. It should be elegant and clean, junior hackers who feel genius and become excited about their ability to find weird techniques to "solve" problems and at the same time remain careless about obfuscating and complicating the code and making it practically unmaintainable, are not the best candidates for the job. Plus, LN as a second layer protocol is a curse. It alienates users from what bitcoin really is and how it should be understood and experienced. Neither scalability nor any other problem in bitcoin should be projected to second layer protocols, it is a dangerous move that discourages mass adoption of bitcoin because it hides bitcoin and all its beauty under a pile of garbage and nonsense. It was how "genius" programmers ruined internet in the last few decades and made it an unsecure, theft friendly environment. Fuck second layer protocols, they do nothing other than fooling people and making them both slaves of rich and victims of thieves. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 05, 2018, 06:16:44 AM Yes yes Segwit can be reversed Incorrect. SegWit addresses can be spent by anyone in Satoshi’s protocol because they’re non-standard and put the signature data in a format that Satoshi’s protocol cannot decode. That is not the same as “reversed”. Details are important. How many times I have explained already that no reversal of the chain is required and no 50+% attack is required. Yet you n00bs continue the sloppy statements. Ok and I agree. In the TRB chain split, once the "Satoshi miners" decide to "attack", coins stored in the Segwit addresses can be spent by anyone, and be considered "donations", while in the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue on as normal. I have to say that again for the n00bs like me reading this. Quote but only for the TRB fork The Satoshi protocol can’t fork off. It is the extant protocol, so it can’t fork itself. The Core protocol is soft-to-be-hard-forking. This has been exhaustively explained to you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). But once the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" it will cause a chain split and make two coins, BTC and TRB. Quote , chain split, that does not follow the rules enforced by 80% of total nodes in the network that are Segwit compatible. You continue repeating this fucking node nonsense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4588992.0#msg41481997) even after I have wiped your face with the floor about it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). What nonsense? It is the infrastructure that reinforces consensus code, and 80% or more of the total nodes are Segwit compatible nodes. Quote TRB will be in its own blockchain where miners can steal coins in Segwit addresses and wipe out the Lightning channels. We already get it. Good luck to that fork. I hope that the market and the users will value it more than Bitcoin so you can leave in peace. You’re entirely confused. LN will continue running on the Core altcoin after Core forks off from Bitcoin. LN will AFAICT continue to be an insecure clusterfuck (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4593630.msg41473994#msg41473994) (which I expounded about (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.20#msg41507907)) even on the Core altcoin. As for the economic reality w.r.t. to the Core altcoin versus the extant Bitcoin (aka Satoshi’s immutable protocol), again I already wiped your face with the floor about it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). I hope we are done with this discussion. Please stop pestering me. You are free to lose all your Bitcoins and hodl Bitcons instead. Just leave me out of your stupid nonsense. I am not pestering you, and I will not stop asking you questions if I disagree in your ideas. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 05, 2018, 07:43:22 AM Ok and I agree. In the TRB chain split, once the "Satoshi miners" decide to "attack", coins stored in the Segwit addresses can be spent by anyone, and be considered "donations", while in the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue on as normal. I have to say that again for the n00bs like me reading this. You continue to lie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41543355#msg41543355) with “attack”, “TRB”, etc.. TRB, short for "The Real Bitcoin", the implementation you call the "Satoshi protocol". The implementation you have given us the links to. Correct me if you mean something else. If it is not an "attack", what would you call it? Another question, what do you believe its ticker should be if listed by an exchange? Quote What nonsense? It is the infrastructure that reinforces consensus code, and 80% or more of the total nodes are Segwit compatible nodes. See that link thing in the quote? Click it and read: If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork. Liar. It has been exhaustively explained that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4588992.0#msg41475354) the number non-mining full nodes being online is basically irrelevant. We have debated on that before and we will never agree who is right. Mining nodes and non-mining nodes are the same because the all validate fully. I know there are some mining nodes that connect directly to some other mining node through a relay network like FIBRE. BUT it is not exclusive to miners, any node can join, and not all miners use it. Plus mining nodes also connect to non-mining nodes because they need peers. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 05, 2018, 11:07:28 PM ... There is no rational conversation I can have with individuals who just proclaim that my reasoning is incorrect without providing a cogent argument as to why the economic reality is not such as I have explained it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). You don't even listen dude ::) ... There has been no cogent rebuttal. You are just amazing, you tell your story and you just don't care about what others say. You deliberately pick the weakest arguments against your story and write another sequence ... I briefly explained to you that economy is not all about currency not even dominating fiat currencies deserve to be considered the most important part of economy. Crypto market is driven by forces ways more stronger than semi-anonymous bitcoin whales who have not enough courage to show up and make few real deals. Millions of new comers just in less than a year have joined, whales didn't pumped up (they are dumping) people did, rich people, middle class people, and adventurists all over the world, they are the true source of power, they are the real economy. Just crystal clear! Why are you so obsessed with bitcoin as a brand anyway? Let it to stay at rest, it needs it, it has been almoswt 10 years and is now time to grow up, to mature. Isn't it? Bitcoin needs to improve and not to stick with a semi-failed implementation, imo. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 06, 2018, 06:02:30 AM If it is not an "attack", what would you call it? A defense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41543355#msg41543355). Because I respect your point of view, I will say "ok" and leave it. I hope your network will be successful, good luck. Quote Another question, what do you believe its ticker should be if listed by an exchange? Regarding naming, IMO honesty and proper disclosure is what rational humans would expect. Since Core must eventually become a hard fork because of the game theory which forces Satoshi miners to defend the security as I explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41543355#msg41543355), then BTC should have remained BTC and Core should have chosen a new name and ticker as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was forced to do by the community. That is according to your point of view. I will show respect, continue to listen, say "ok", but I will make an argument for the sake of my point of view. Quote The only reason that Core was able to fool the community into letting it abuse the naming is they tricked everyone into believing that if the soft fork becomes a hard fork, it is because Satoshi’s protocol is reviving itself from the dead. But that is not the economic reality which I have explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). There is no rational conversation I can have with individuals who just proclaim that my reasoning is incorrect without providing a cogent argument as to why the economic reality is not such as I have explained it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.msg41488002#msg41488002). Blame all the people in the community who has reached social consensus in the matter. Quote Putting in more simple terms, Core is an attack on Bitcoin which they’ve cleverly hidden from the community with a political propaganda and placing their protocol changes into an “anyone can spend” soft fork which must become a hard fork as it forces the Satoshi protocol to defend itself against 50+% reversal attacks financed by the “anyone can spend” booty. Only from your point of view again. Ok. Quote We have debated on that before and we will never agree who is right. Mining nodes and non-mining nodes are the same because the all validate fully. There has been no cogent rebuttal. But from my point of view there was no cogent statement from you. Quote I think the bottom line is that you really want Ethereum, not Bitcoin. See the bottom of this post. I respect meritocracy and economic reality whilst disrespecting social consensus. You respect social consensus whilst disrespecting meritocracy and economic reality. I hope the "Satoshi miners" will start their chain split as soon as possible. I cannot wait to see what would happen in practice. Good luck on your chain split. Plus who are the "Satoshi miners"? Was there an announcement on who would support TRB? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: minefarmbuy on July 06, 2018, 06:44:10 AM Why would you POW change or fork when bitcoin is gaining momentum? You put everyone back to zero. Those that spent $3k on an asic in early 2018 now you want them to buy more hardware? Who does this benefit? Manufacturers, players like those who you want to dismount as adoption rate plummets. Poor chess playing.
Like wow it's nostalgic to go and play vanilla but it's never the same. Players need to do more than play, they need to compete. Like sidehack will preach (sorry for bringing you into this), design and efficiency. For us (mfb), it's price regardless of market. As manufacturers in this arena have no wholesale price. Seems communists are the greatest capitalists (satire?). For all us normals it's the same as always: get gear, grind, get better gear, grind. Or hash how you say. The more we bring into mining the better but then mining is a competition, where someone already wants an edge, an advantage. So a POW change? Who has the edge here? Not those who have nothing more. Mining is math, and should stay consistent for everyone. Changing it rips decentralization form us all, at once. The playing field isn't even, nor was it ever. The thing is, it is known and that is easier to combat than the alternative. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Last of the V8s on July 06, 2018, 11:01:48 AM ... Btw, I entirely disagree with Mircea Popescu’s following blog post. He and no one else can propose any changes to Bitcoin. In fact, the following blog post is idiotic, foolish nonsense: http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/ Miners will provide non-mining full nodes as necessary (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.20#msg39515634) if the community does not provide them for free. Because they have the economic incentive to do so. The proposal to enable non-mining nodes to hold mining nodes hostage changes the game theory of Bitcoin in ways he does not fully understand! For example, this will reduce the anonymity of miners and flexibility for jurisdictional arbitrage by miners because much more data will have to be transferred between full nodes and miners: It’s not just the fees. It’s the I/O cost of moving all those shares over the network. For example, right now a mining farm can easily remain anonymous (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg39688231#msg39688231), but your proposal would make that more difficult. Also the cost of change in data center infrastructure and ASIC hardware to accommodate this change. Also it increases latency. And besides it will not accomplish anything good because miners will just end up running their own full nodes, so one full node per mining farm is not an improvement. Also this will start the slippery slope of breaking the immutability of Satoshi’s protocol. Besides this change would be defeated by the mining cartels and economic majority. Satoshi was much smarter than Mircea Popescu. Also I have been told by someone who has a ~5 SD IQ that Popescu is at most ~3 SD. Unwise to be disrespectful to someone you yourself recognise is so powerful. Unwise not to take on board the implications of footnote 3 in the very essay you quote http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/#identifier_2_64828 Looks like you have 27 months of catching up on the logs to do. Not least. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 06, 2018, 06:10:32 PM ... ... Please I hope M.P. will stop this and stop thinking that Satoshi was inept. He is just hasn’t yet realized that Satoshi did everything for a reason and everything was exquisitely mapped out and the future was perfectly anticipated. WTF? And we should buy this shit? Satoshi nakamoto got a brilliant idea, coded it in a rush and disappeared in shame when he found how crazy things work in the real world and his alpha version of a Proof of Work consensus based electronic cash is vulnerable to centralization because of its obvious variance flaw (and the more sneaky proximity advantage flaw), he had no clue how to fix it. This is what happens when you are miles ahead of your contemporaries, you become exhausted and you stop progressing more. Plus, he was so dumb to choose a small memory footprint algo like SHA256 which turned out to be vulnerable to ASIC attack. I mean it! how dumb a designer (who wishes to have a one cpu-one vote BFT system) should be to choose the most vulnerable algorithm to an attack like ASIC that has an even older history than cpus? Heh? Seriously? It was the most foolish option one could ever pick. And now Satoshi Nakamoto is kinda god? Software is no Bible, it is just one of human's disposable products. It should be maintained and improved and thrown away and redesigned regularly. Satoshi was missing this fact completely, he had nothing to say about governance. His proposal for an electronic cash system being decentralized and autonomous was flawed inherently because he had no idea of how the protocol (and not the code alone) should improve and evolve and after less than two years with the most critical problems popping up, centralized exchanges centralized pools, ... well I would disappear too. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: mu_enrico on July 07, 2018, 11:56:01 PM So, after reading all these posts, I'm struggling to get facts from opinions (and off-topic debate). Anyway, here are the "important" points from an Average Joe:
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 08, 2018, 08:34:01 AM So, after reading all these posts, I'm struggling to get facts from opinions (and off-topic debate). Anyway, here are the "important" points from an Average Joe:
Congratulations: You won the SSE (Shittiest Summary Ever) prize which is sponsored by @anunymint. ;D
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 08, 2018, 11:16:04 AM ʿAlī Bābā admits proof-of-work allows oligarchies (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.20#msg41730486) therefore according to ʿAlī Bābā, we should store our Bitcoins in SegWit addresses that begin with a 3 so that when the oligarchy hard forks Bitcoin we end up only with Core tokens and not both real Bitcoin and Core tokens. I'm Alī Bābā? I got an alias, cool. I didn't admit anything like that ever and referencing to your own claims (your another weird habit) won't change this. My position here is crystal clear: Oligarchies are pre-bitcoin phenomenons, they are NOT symptoms or consequences of Bitcoin. It was supposed to improve the situation with them tho and failed to do so because it was launched premature and transited from an experimental project to an operational one, overnight. I'm not suggesting about how and where you store your coins, don't care and as I've mentioned it clearly, the whole SegWit/LN thing is a distraction from the main problems. Quote ʿAlī Bābā has this delusion that he will remove the undesirable invariants of proof-of-work with the magic words “open sesame”, yet all we will ever see come that is talk and delusion, never reality because he is simply incorrect. I, Alī Bābā (seriously, I love it), hereby announce:I've already suggested a detailed specification for an alternative implementation of PoW (http://a detailed specification for an alternative implementation of PoW) and I'm busy with further design/implementation issues. Everything is ok, exciting improvements and a lot of fun ahead, you and other guys of 40 thieves are welcome to join. ;D Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 09, 2018, 06:40:05 AM ʿAlī Bābā admits proof-of-work allows oligarchies (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.20#msg41730486) therefore according to ʿAlī Bābā, we should store our Bitcoins in SegWit addresses that begin with a 3 so that when the oligarchy hard forks Bitcoin we end up only with Core tokens and not both real Bitcoin and Core tokens. Yes, it is much better to put your cold storage coins in a legacy address. Ali Baba should read about "Pascal's Wager". I believe the same argument would apply in this situation. Quote ʿAlī Bābā has this delusion that he will remove the undesirable invariants of proof-of-work with the magic words “open sesame”, yet I expect that all we will ever see come from that is talk and delusion, never reality because he is simply incorrect (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.msg40488783#msg40488783). What is there to remove? But that does not mean that the threat of a POW change should not be there. I believe the economic majority would agree to it as a last resort. But careful planning must be done. Quote He will likely blame his failure on me, accusing me of killing the interest in his magic designs. a detailed specification for an alternative implementation of PoW (http://a detailed specification for an alternative implementation of PoW) Corrected link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0 Why you? What did you do? ::) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 09, 2018, 08:10:04 AM Yes, it is much better to put your cold storage coins in a legacy address. Ali Baba should read about "Pascal's Wager". I believe the same argument would apply in this situation. It is insane. If somebody took kinda pill and got a bit more delusioned than @anunymint to make prophecy about an upcoming fork that will disregard/scize all odd wallets, you would transfer your deposits to even wallets? Why? Because of "Pascal's Wager"? Who is Ali Baba by the way? ;D Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 10, 2018, 06:59:31 AM Yes, it is much better to put your cold storage coins in a legacy address. Ali Baba should read about "Pascal's Wager". I believe the same argument would apply in this situation. It is insane. If somebody took kinda pill and got a bit more delusioned than @anunymint to make prophecy about an upcoming fork that will disregard/scize all odd wallets, you would transfer your deposits to even wallets? Why? Because of "Pascal's Wager"? I believe you do not understand the situation? If the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" there would be a chain split to Bitcoin and TRB. In the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue as normal. In the TRB chain, your coins stored in a Segwit address can be taken from you. I do not want that. I want to dump my TRB for Bitcoins as an extra bonus from the split, the same as my Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold bonuses. Hahaha. Quote Who is Ali Baba by the way? ;D I believe you. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: WanguiWudong on July 10, 2018, 07:18:47 AM I do not think so
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 10, 2018, 10:58:14 AM Yes, it is much better to put your cold storage coins in a legacy address. Ali Baba should read about "Pascal's Wager". I believe the same argument would apply in this situation. It is insane. If somebody took kinda pill and got a bit more delusioned than @anunymint to make prophecy about an upcoming fork that will disregard/scize all odd wallets, you would transfer your deposits to even wallets? Why? Because of "Pascal's Wager"? I believe you do not understand the situation? If the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" there would be a chain split to Bitcoin and TRB. In the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue as normal. In the TRB chain, your coins stored in a Segwit address can be taken from you. I do not want that. I want to dump my TRB for Bitcoins as an extra bonus from the split, the same as my Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold bonuses. Hahaha. Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: vapourminer on July 10, 2018, 12:05:37 PM I believe you do not understand the situation? If the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" there would be a chain split to Bitcoin and TRB. In the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue as normal. In the TRB chain, your coins stored in a Segwit address can be taken from you. I do not want that. I want to dump my TRB for Bitcoins as an extra bonus from the split, the same as my Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold bonuses. Hahaha. Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. no matter which wins, and no matter which you support, the fact remains you can sell the ones you dont like for coins that you do like. and legacy addys are the lowest common denominator. legacy gives coins on each. segwit on one. even if you just plan to sell the satoshi/trb/whatever coins for core coins, you still get more coins to sell by hedging your bets and using legacy for long term hodl. so it seems an easy strategy to hold long term hold coins in legacy at this point. hedging bets is part of crypto, or at least thats my stratagy and it has served me well to this point. we are in a new space, running beta software, and splits happen. trusting no one is the whole point of bitcoin. and its up to the individual to take the security of their coins seriously. each must make that decision based on their own criteria. there is no hand holding here. #DYOR Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 10, 2018, 07:04:06 PM Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake? I'm smelling kinda conspiracy or something here: spreading words to run another ridiculous fork. Am I right? If so, why don't guys like you consider a meaningful, real fork to support a more ambitious and equally useful agenda? Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone. Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 10, 2018, 08:55:44 PM Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake? Totally. For the God Sake! Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone. Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours. Lame. Someone who has contributed so little doesn't get to shit on those who have contributed so much. I defy you to find a group of users more knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent than the bitcoin-dev nerds. -------------------- Liking the thread. You're a smart chap aliashraf. Doing well with Anony. I think of him as the Kurgan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kurgan ) Back to POW. If you are referring to POW as the beautiful objective unit that we can all independently verify - the answer is no. But if you are referring to it as the POW FEE-BASED MINING industry, and so that question is - does FEE BASED MINING centralise, the answer is yes. I see your POCW as a way of spreading the mining out into an ever thinner sheet over the users, but at the end of the day mining centralises. no matter how you wrap it up. You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 10, 2018, 09:59:32 PM You’re ostensibly out of your pay grade and do not even comprehend the technological issues deeply. If you think you’re capable of matching wits with me in terms of consensus systems technology, let’s have a test. Start any time you want. I’m game. Life's too short. You prefer to compare me to bitcoin-dev (aka Core more or less) when I’ve been obliterated by Tuberculosis and cysts on my liver and spleen that destroyed my productivity for the past several years, because you see them busy producing code. But that is an ignorant way of forming a comparison. The quality and outcome of the code matters. And comparing a horrifically ill person’s productivity to those who are not ill is inane. I will remember your fairness when I come storming back healthy with code that is not incorrect like the shit Core produces. Everything they have proposed is insecure including LN, SegWit, and Side-chains. They’re are breaking Bitcoin, but they will fail and those who are smart will still have their secure real Bitcoins in the end. I am being utterly fair. step up or shut up. No one is having a go at you, you deluded psychopath. Jesus chill out. Anyone says anything you bring up your bloody TB. You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges) The sign of a Dunning-Kruger mode is when non-experts hand-wave generalities that aren’t even technologically correlated as you are doing here. I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 10, 2018, 10:53:14 PM Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone. Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours. Lame. Someone who has contributed so little doesn't get to shit on those who have contributed so much. I defy you to find a group of users more knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent than the bitcoin-dev nerds. It was how we ended to this situation with bitcoin, being overtaken by pools and ASICs while our super genius lads were playing SegWit shit. I just don't take them that serious. Juniors are ok until they have been put in charge. Quote I see your POCW as a way of spreading the mining out into an ever thinner sheet over the users, but at the end of the day mining centralises. no matter how you wrap it up. As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong?You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 10, 2018, 11:27:19 PM I rather prefer senior programmers (20+ years of professional experience, minimum) to nerds. I’d prefer that level of experience with the capability to do PhD-level provable research. I claim 40 years of programming experience and the latter ability also although much less accomplished at the latter. Devs don't research! Research sucks. There exists really a Tao for programming. It creates and doesn't wait for never ending show off in academic research. By seniors, I don't mean researchers. I mean masters of the art who are primarily focused on the cause and the spirit and are not obsessed with being genius and do not ruin the code base to make it their own territory. Plus, 40 years is too much, time to retire :P Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 11, 2018, 05:39:34 AM I believe you do not understand the situation? If the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" there would be a chain split to Bitcoin and TRB. In the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue as normal. In the TRB chain, your coins stored in a Segwit address can be taken from you. I do not want that. I want to dump my TRB for Bitcoins as an extra bonus from the split, the same as my Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold bonuses. Hahaha. Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. no matter which wins, and no matter which you support, the fact remains you can sell the ones you dont like for coins that you do like. and legacy addys are the lowest common denominator. legacy gives coins on each. segwit on one. even if you just plan to sell the satoshi/trb/whatever coins for core coins, you still get more coins to sell by hedging your bets and using legacy for long term hodl. so it seems an easy strategy to hold long term hold coins in legacy at this point. I believe he has not understood what the situation is fully, and that there are 80% of total nodes that are Segwit compatible enforcing the rules that would make the TRB chain the minority after the split. But it would be good to store some coins in a legacy address to get some bonus TRB coins. Pascal's Wager - what do you have to lose if you store your coins in a legacy address? 8) Quote hedging bets is part of crypto, or at least thats my stratagy and it has served me well to this point. we are in a new space, running beta software, and splits happen. trusting no one is the whole point of bitcoin. and its up to the individual to take the security of their coins seriously. each must make that decision based on their own criteria. there is no hand holding here. #DYOR It is not a "hedge". TRB coins will be a "bonus" the same as Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 11, 2018, 06:57:28 AM Devs don't research! Research sucks. There have been very prolific programmers who also do important research which they implemented as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov (created the C++ Standard Template Library) is written in C++. There never was a “C++ project” either, or a “C++ design committee”. Throughout, C++ evolved, and continues to evolve, to cope with problems encountered by users, and through discussions between the author and his friends and colleagues -Bjarne Stroustrup: An overview of C++. ACM Sigplan Notices, Special Issue. October, 1986 Stepanov went to Stroustrup for his idea regarding generic programming, his colleague in Bell Labs,the same develop-first atmosphere, all the same story. I'm not against anything called research, my current occupation might be called research. I just don't believe in formal, academic research. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 11, 2018, 08:33:26 AM ..I have fucking Cherokee genetics. Well I have a Cherokee Jeep. ..an offense deserving capital punishment. .. beat the shit out of a much larger American white boy .. They will mess you up if you do. Ever heard of the Balangiga massacre? .. ..a bounty “per head” of captured Japanese soldiers .. delivered many severed heads.. traded Japanese ears for bounty.. killed numerous men for acting with high pride. Just sliced them up with a bolo... etc etc etc.. err.. ? If you want to stay on the technological discussion, then I leave the native tribe side of myself off to the side. Please let's. I publicly request an end to this hostility and a return to a more jovial discussion. ------------------------- Even if you removed transaction fees and put in a perpetual block reward, it would still centralize because of the economics of mining and the power-law distribution of wealth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.20#msg41730486). By fee-less mining I mean no fee AND no block reward. You can't pay anyone anything. Can't outsource to a third party. Otherwise fighting breaks out.. and in the end.. There can be only One (You know this..). As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong? A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: vapourminer on July 11, 2018, 10:59:10 AM Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake? right now the chain core is on and the chain that trb/satoshicoin/whatever is on are the same chain. splitting it out is trivial. being here since 2011 i have seen vast amounts of fud, greed, lies, power grabs, misdirection, you name it. the amount of forks is ridiculous and any fork that can enrich some group (even by a seemingly small amount at the time) is pretty much inevitable. i am not telling you to use any particular chain, coin or address format. thats totally up to you. i do recommend you do your own research in such things. and never underestimate power or greed. you have the freedom to use and store coins in any way or format you wish. as i and anyone else does. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: vapourminer on July 11, 2018, 11:05:29 AM Well I have a Cherokee Jeep. another XJ guy. cool ;D Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 11, 2018, 12:50:35 PM Even if you removed transaction fees and put in a perpetual block reward, it would still centralize because of the economics of mining and the power-law distribution of wealth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4579834.20#msg41730486). By fee-less mining I mean no fee AND no block reward. You can't pay anyone anything. Can't outsource to a third party. Otherwise fighting breaks out.. and in the end.. There can be only One (You know this..). As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong? A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.) No block reward & no fees <==> tangle (IOTA) It is true specially considering your underlined(by me) phrase: the fee being the work IOTA and tangles are out of context. Let's put it this way and stick with our plain old blockchain technology. Note that eliminating transaction fees alone and keeping block rewards or vice versa, won't help your argument about de-incentivizing centralization attempts in bitcoin. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: monsterer2 on July 11, 2018, 01:01:12 PM A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.) You mean like this: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf ? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 11, 2018, 03:32:48 PM A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.) You mean like this: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf ? :).. there you go!.. The Mining Subsidy.. It's not clear to me quite how that works.. What Stops people fighting over it - or do they just compete as normal ? How long does it take for a branch to become heavy enough to be considered final ? How do you remove the need for the coordinator that IOTA uses ? Are you knocking this up and launching ? .. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 11, 2018, 03:58:31 PM As I said before, better to focus on blockchain technology.
My Proposal for improving bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0) to fix pooling pressure problems, Proof of Collaborative Work (PoCW) is an exemplary instance of what PoW is capable of and, back to op and this topic, is not doomed to centralization. I'm not assuming that proposal as being 100% correct (I have yet to implement and prove it practical, I admit) but I suppose it is already a proof for what I want to put an emphasis on: PoW is new technology and a lot of opportunities exist for it to be improved and fixed to resist ways more effective against centralization threats. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: monsterer2 on July 11, 2018, 06:27:59 PM :).. there you go!.. The Mining Subsidy.. It's not clear to me quite how that works.. What Stops people fighting over it - or do they just compete as normal ? Everyone on the path of greatest cumulative difficulty gets a mining reward proportional to their chosen difficulty. The big departure from bitcoin is there is no competition to mine the best block, since only the sender of the single transaction within the block can 'mine' it. Quote How long does it take for a branch to become heavy enough to be considered final ? How do you remove the need for the coordinator that IOTA uses ? Are you knocking this up and launching ? .. How long in real time is hard to quantify, but its very easy to quantify finality - it's simply when enough PoW gets built on top of the transaction in question to make any attack B/E, where 'enough' is equal to the sum of all the block rewards above the transaction. This doesn't need coordinators because it has a mining incentive. I'm not planing on taking this any further as a cryptocurrency - simply because it doesn't support lite nodes. No DAG design can support lite nodes without extra centralisation. As @anunymint noted previous, satoshi didn't make any mistakes - blocks are essential for adoption. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 11, 2018, 09:06:21 PM Everyone on the path of greatest cumulative difficulty gets a mining reward proportional to their chosen difficulty. The big departure from bitcoin is there is no competition to mine the best block, since only the sender of the single transaction within the block can 'mine' it. This would be a perpetual subsidy - not one that runs out ? Is there no competition to mine the most max POW transactions, and accrue the most mining subsidy ? A professional miner as you say in your paper. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 11, 2018, 10:07:43 PM Sorry - zero sum..
The subsidy is equal to the cost of mining.. I see. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 12, 2018, 06:45:11 AM Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork. for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake? right now the chain core is on and the chain that trb/satoshicoin/whatever is on are the same chain. splitting it out is trivial. being here since 2011 i have seen vast amounts of fud, greed, lies, power grabs, misdirection, you name it. the amount of forks is ridiculous and any fork that can enrich some group (even by a seemingly small amount at the time) is pretty much inevitable. i am not telling you to use any particular chain, coin or address format. thats totally up to you. i do recommend you do your own research in such things. and never underestimate power or greed. you have the freedom to use and store coins in any way or format you wish. as i and anyone else does. But it would be safer and better to use a legacy address for cold storage if anyone does not want to miss out on more "air drops", forked coins, or whatever they call it. You have nothing to lose but maybe some to gain. I disagree with many of anunymint's ideas, but storing your coins in a legacy address is good advice. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: monsterer2 on July 12, 2018, 07:29:15 AM This would be a perpetual subsidy - not one that runs out ? Is there no competition to mine the most max POW transactions, and accrue the most mining subsidy ? A professional miner as you say in your paper. The subsidy is perpetual, yes. There is no competition to mine a particular block; all miners can mine their own max difficulty blocks - they just have to be careful not to do so outside the path of most cumulative difficulty. Doing it like this maximises PoW efficiency, since no PoW is 'wasted' in orphans, it all adds to the security of the DAG. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: thejaytiesto on July 12, 2018, 01:06:49 PM I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest. This sounds the same as someone coming up with a perpetual motion machine. "fee-less POW" probably breaks some fundamental laws of physics. I can't even finish an IQ test and see these things as obvious, cmon now. Maybe try again in a couple 100 years and we may have some mind blowing stuff which allows for very reduced fees at big volume transactions without compromising security and decentralization but certainly not "fee-less". Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 12, 2018, 01:14:59 PM For very low fees, No need to wait 100 years. I think I'm coming to something, will keep you informed ;)
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 12, 2018, 01:41:44 PM I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest. This sounds the same as someone coming up with a perpetual motion machine. "fee-less POW" probably breaks some fundamental laws of physics. I can't even finish an IQ test and see these things as obvious, cmon now. Maybe try again in a couple 100 years and we may have some mind blowing stuff which allows for very reduced fees at big volume transactions without compromising security and decentralization but certainly not "fee-less". Fee as in financial fee.. no perpetual motion required, users will obviously have to put something in (probably POW.. who knows.. maybe user based POCW) T.E.T.O. (^^ above) has a fee-less POW based chain (DAG) that doesn't centralise the mining (AND no coordinator). It has it's particular issues ( seem like generic DAG issues ).. but it's pretty close. (Congrats to Monstererer2! for coming up with an original design) IOTA has no fees, doesn't centralise the mining, and almost works, but they have the Coordinator issue. 2 down.. and only an infinite number of different fee-less blockchain algos still to go.. .. It won't take 100 years to crack this nut :) ps - I admit I am also working on a coin (fee-less) - aren't we all !? (win or lose - It's just too much fun) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: aliashraf on July 12, 2018, 02:42:29 PM I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest. This sounds the same as someone coming up with a perpetual motion machine. "fee-less POW" probably breaks some fundamental laws of physics. I can't even finish an IQ test and see these things as obvious, cmon now. Maybe try again in a couple 100 years and we may have some mind blowing stuff which allows for very reduced fees at big volume transactions without compromising security and decentralization but certainly not "fee-less". Fee as in financial fee.. no perpetual motion required, users will obviously have to put something in (probably POW.. who knows.. maybe user based POCW) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: snowwhitc01 on July 13, 2018, 07:27:55 AM I'm not so updated with the latest pos evolutionเล่นไพ่ออนไลน์ (http://www.ufabet99.com/เล่นไพ่บนมือถือ):p
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Traxo on July 13, 2018, 01:45:04 PM Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing.
Some of this thread was archived here (http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all) and here (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all). Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: spartacusrex on July 13, 2018, 01:54:20 PM Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing. :( .. that's not cool. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: thejaytiesto on July 13, 2018, 02:08:44 PM I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest. This sounds the same as someone coming up with a perpetual motion machine. "fee-less POW" probably breaks some fundamental laws of physics. I can't even finish an IQ test and see these things as obvious, cmon now. Maybe try again in a couple 100 years and we may have some mind blowing stuff which allows for very reduced fees at big volume transactions without compromising security and decentralization but certainly not "fee-less". Fee as in financial fee.. no perpetual motion required, users will obviously have to put something in (probably POW.. who knows.. maybe user based POCW) T.E.T.O. (^^ above) has a fee-less POW based chain (DAG) that doesn't centralise the mining (AND no coordinator). It has it's particular issues ( seem like generic DAG issues ).. but it's pretty close. (Congrats to Monstererer2! for coming up with an original design) IOTA has no fees, doesn't centralise the mining, and almost works, but they have the Coordinator issue. 2 down.. and only an infinite number of different fee-less blockchain algos still to go.. .. It won't take 100 years to crack this nut :) ps - I admit I am also working on a coin (fee-less) - aren't we all !? (win or lose - It's just too much fun) Im not discouraging anyone to stop trying. However, remember that something only works when it's worth several billion dollars over a span of 10+ years, can handle state-sponsored attacks and so on. I would like to see these alts in the #1 spot taking all the heat. #1 spot = gets the most attacks by hackers and attackers all over the world. Ultimate street creed if you fuck up the #1 crypto, so you must be prepared for that. Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing. What happened? anyway there is an archive of his posts here: https://archive.fo/lNr2W Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Traxo on July 13, 2018, 02:46:13 PM anyway there is an archive of his posts here: https://archive.fo/lNr2W The archives are incomplete and lack some very important technical points he made in the past 2 weeks which were not archived. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 13, 2018, 03:06:18 PM points he made So we're just supposed to pretend this isn't yet another one of your accounts and you aren't talking about yourself in the third person right now? Okay, sure. ::) //EDIT: and no one cares about your proxies either Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Traxo on July 13, 2018, 03:14:12 PM So we're just supposed to pretend this isn't yet another one of your accounts and you aren't talking about yourself in the third person right now? You are not prepared for decentralization (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4416188.msg42102072#msg42102072). This is why you will lose (everything). The point is that it does not matter who I am. But seriously ask Theymos to check my IP address. How did Shelby transport himself to Croatia while he is simultaneously reading this from his account from an IP address in the Philippines. He and I are not liars. Do you fantasize that he and decentralization are lone, isolated kooks? Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: mu_enrico on July 13, 2018, 04:18:41 PM Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing. Some of this thread was archived here (http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all) and here (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all). Yes, I just notice it today... It's too bad that he was banned for "spreading lies about Bitcoin... etc." I know not all of his posts were great, but at least he has helped me learn a lot about bitcoin within his perspective. Of course, I made my own research, not just blindly take his words as facts. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Wind_FURY on July 14, 2018, 07:26:44 AM Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing. Some of this thread was archived here (http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all) and here (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all). Yes, I just notice it today... It's too bad that he was banned for "spreading lies about Bitcoin... etc." I know not all of his posts were great, but at least he has helped me learn a lot about bitcoin within his perspective. Of course, I made my own research, not just blindly take his words as facts. Yes, the same situation with me. It made me read the basics of Bitcoin more because some of his posts were either FUD, or misinformation, or lies that I had to do my own research. But I am not sure what his agenda was, to spread his ideas so diligently. Haha. Maybe he needed validation. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: HeRetiK on July 14, 2018, 08:10:40 AM Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing. Some of this thread was archived here (http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all) and here (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4433000.0;all). I understand that they banned his account for circumventing a previous ban -- honestly I wondered why the banhammer didn't strike sooner -- but I also find it problematic that all his posts got deleted. Sure, there were a lot of dubious claims in his writings and at times things got a bit out of hand but it's not like he was spamming the boards like some of the n00b and bounty hunter accounts out there. Aw well. I just hope this case won't get instrumentalized as an example of "censorship on Bitcointalk". Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: vapourminer on July 15, 2018, 02:14:57 PM i find it rather odd that this forum is basically the "go to" source of info on btc. and yet mods feel free to just delete any and all info on a whim.
how can accurate decisions be made when the needed info is just deleted. agree with shelby or not, he had some useful info, as well as the useful info in the replies from others that were deleted also. and yet the useless shitposters are alive and well. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: DooMAD on July 15, 2018, 08:41:28 PM i find it rather odd that this forum is basically the "go to" source of info on btc. and yet mods feel free to just delete any and all info on a whim. how can accurate decisions be made when the needed info is just deleted. agree with shelby or not, he had some useful info, as well as the useful info in the replies from others that were deleted also. and yet the useless shitposters are alive and well. //EDIT: Changed my mind, my reply to this belongs here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg42253676#msg42253676), as do any other posts regarding this matter. His posts were deleted to get this thread back to the original topic, not to have a discussion about him or forum moderation policy. This thread is about PoW and the chances or possibilities of centralisation. That's what needs to be discussed in here. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Zin-Zang on July 27, 2018, 01:37:29 AM The Current PoW design is an evolutionary dead end.
It only has few possible outcomes. 1. Price per coin fails to keep up with input costs required to run the network, in which case the Bitcoin Network Miners cease mining as no profit in it. Bitcoin Network then seizes up in a death spiral. 2. Price per coin continues to rise as the insane energy waste continues, thus causing all ASIC miners to require Government Permits due to their energy requirements. At this point , the Governments decide who may be miners, and requires them to block transactions per their government policies. (Miners can't steal your coins, but can make certain that you are unable to spend them.) Not long after all of the Miners are Government Mandated, their will be a global collusion of what % each approved mining will mine and then it is just another government controlled service and the energy usage will be managed at a sustainable rate, by mandating the hash and energy allowed. Miners will only be able to make changes/upgrades when government policy allows. But since hash % will be fixed, energy waste will be removed as a issue and there will no longer be a yearly need for new asics, as their will be no competition , but mandated mining only. 3. Price per coin continues to rise as the insane energy waste continue, but the energy companies refuse to allow permits for the miners , and outlaw Bitcoin mining in every country that mining would be profitable, therefore destroying profitability and ensuring the network dies in a death spiral. The Beginning of this scenario , will be when they start showing ads of old people suffering in the cold and heat unable to afford their electric bill , because the evil corrupt /greedy bitcoin miners have driven up the energy costs for everyone. So 1 & 3 are the death of bitcoin with the price hitting zero and 2 it becomes a government servant with the miners doing as they are told for a limited/fixed profit margin. Only an alternative consensus method can evade those 3 scenarios, and being energy efficient is a requirement to evade them. :) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: vert12020 on July 27, 2018, 11:03:10 PM That pdf about p versus np won't be his, surely. It's a common name. Sorry I missed it earlier
Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: mu_enrico on July 27, 2018, 11:18:16 PM <...> Ever heard of "equilibrium" fella? Price vs hash-rate will fluctuate in order to reach equilibrium. So point 1 is invalid. When electricity is limited, the competition then shifts to efficiency. Whoever can design better ASIC will win the battle. So point 2 and 3, are incomplete. Anyway, this real world is complicated, you don't have to simplify things :) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Zin-Zang on July 28, 2018, 12:39:15 AM <...> Ever heard of "equilibrium" fella? Price vs hash-rate will fluctuate in order to reach equilibrium. So point 1 is invalid. When electricity is limited, the competition then shifts to efficiency. Whoever can design better ASIC will win the battle. So point 2 and 3, are incomplete. Anyway, this real world is complicated, you don't have to simplify things :) I guess you don't read the news , where Utilities are refusing or charging higher rates to ASIC miners. I guess you don't understand those miners already have to apply for permits to draw the amount of electricity. I guess you don't understand that China is literally kicking ASICS Miners out of their country. Either bitcoin dies or the Government Mandate the so called equilibrium which bitcoin insane energy usage will force to happen. There are no other futures for it, one of the 3 listed and that is it as long as they use energy wasting PoW, they have no other possible futures. Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: mu_enrico on July 28, 2018, 12:15:12 PM Premise:
<...> I guess you don't read the news, where Utilities are refusing or charging higher rates to ASIC miners. I guess you don't understand those miners already have to apply for permits to draw the amount of electricity. I guess you don't understand that China is literally kicking ASICS Miners out of their country. <...> Conclusion: <...> Nope, with that premise, the conclusion can be different.Either bitcoin dies or the Government Mandates the so-called equilibrium which bitcoin insane energy usage will force to happen. There are no other futures for it, one of the 3 listed and that is it as long as they use energy wasting PoW, they have no other possible futures. <...> There will be more small-home ASIC miner, someone somewhere in his basement will continue to mine bitcoin. China is kicking ASIC Miners then they will operate somewhere in their secret basements :) Title: Re: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? Post by: Zin-Zang on July 29, 2018, 05:24:50 AM Premise: <...> I guess you don't read the news, where Utilities are refusing or charging higher rates to ASIC miners. I guess you don't understand those miners already have to apply for permits to draw the amount of electricity. I guess you don't understand that China is literally kicking ASICS Miners out of their country. <...> Conclusion: <...> Nope, with that premise, the conclusion can be different.Either bitcoin dies or the Government Mandates the so-called equilibrium which bitcoin insane energy usage will force to happen. There are no other futures for it, one of the 3 listed and that is it as long as they use energy wasting PoW, they have no other possible futures. <...> There will be more small-home ASIC miner, someone somewhere in his basement will continue to mine bitcoin. China is kicking ASIC Miners then they will operate somewhere in their secret basements :) LOL, No , they won't , not for long. Small operations lost the ability to make a profit mining bitcoin years ago. The electricity draw alone will alert the authorities to any bitcoin PoW miner. See FYI below. All PoW operations grow too large to hide, only proof of stake coins could hide and never be found, but for PoW hiding is impossible once their price rises high enough. It is one of the failures of PoW design, get large or get out. The Fact that special permits are required to draw that much power also escapes you. Allocation of those permits is what the Governments will use to enslave the miners to their dominance. So the Governments can denied those permits and cause bitcoin to die from unprofitably or allow those permits and control the miners (telling them to not include transactions from unapproved sources). Sorry it is Checkmate against bitcoin either way. :P FYI: https://cointelegraph.com/news/chinese-police-arrest-bitcoin-miner-who-stole-150-mw-of-electricity https://www.computerworld.com/article/2469854/internet/bitcoin-miners-busted--police-confuse-bitcoin-power-usage-for-pot-farm.html https://www.ccn.com/russian-police-build-case-against-cryptocurrency-mining-farm-organizers/ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk7wy/how-much-energy-growing-weed-vs-mining-bitcoin |
