That's about it. Yep. I'm already there, just waiting for you all to get onboard. I expect it's not going to take much more of this before everyone else sees what we're being faced with. Take heed, everyone: call me paranoid, call me a loon, whatever. But I'm expecting geopolitical tensions to rise in lock-step with the Bitcoin fork wars. To not expect sudden major global events to simultaneously happen would not be diligent, watch both horizons closely. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core has no chance. All the big Bitcoin Chinamen are colluding together to kick them out.
They'll be cursing their $500 paperweights when the PoW fork kicks them out instead  It's time. We must fork Bitcoin to a new PoW algo to preserve it. |
|
|
|
|
So no reasoning against what I'm propounding, and refusing to explain what reasoning lies behind saying "because" over and over again?
......except "people didn't want x, therefore people will never choose y"? Curious arguing, gentlemen
|
|
|
|
|
Burt, you keep saying "it'll never happen". Explain why, instead of repeating-repeating-repeating like a brainwashing propagandist
|
|
|
|
|
"The decision will be made by the miners"
That's right Burt, but not nuanced enough
If we change PoW, we change who the miners are. Don't you like that idea? I do
|
|
|
|
ayer two protocols such as the lightning network are exaggerating the functionality and benefits, and saying nothing of the limitations and shortcomings. This further exacerbates the miners’ fears. A clear contradiction. The miners cannot seriously expect us to believe that Lightning will not be effective, and simultaneously argue that it will also be too effective. From their perspective, a relatively compromising strategy is to delay segwit and promote on-chain scaling.
Why would they promote on-chain scaling you ask? Because if the on-chain fees are kept to within a reasonable scope, the user’s attraction to second layer protocols wouldn’t be as great. Another contradiction. 1. Lightning can't work without on-chain transactions to open the channel (and for closing if need be) 2. Because of the not-quite-trustless way that Lightning works, it will only ever be used when customer and merchant trust one another. That means on-chain will always be needed for "high-trust required" situations as well as opening/closing "trust-required" Lightning channels 3. What the miners supporting BU are promoting is not on-chain scaling anyway, it's an on-chain capacity upgrade, which is subtly, but importantly different to real on chain scaling Blocksize increase = on-chain capacity upgrade Transaction size decrease = on-chain scaling |
|
|
|
What you may want to ask is what are the real intentions of the folks behind BU? Do they really want so much to make Bitcoin better or just want to stifle its current implementation even if that will hurt the majority of Bitcoin users? Are they mad or what?
We want A) on-chain scaling and B) free of centralized development. Are those "mad"? And why would you doubt that's what we really want? A) No you don't, you want on-chain bloating, not scaling. If blocksize and tx/s increase 1:1, which they do, that's not scaling. Real scaling increases transaction rate with the same amount of block space. Scaling means making transactions smaller, not the blocks bigger. Or are you trying to make up your own definition for the word "scaling", like you do with other words that get in your way? B) All you want is to replace one centralised team with another. It's not possible to have contradicting ideas existing in the same concept, that makes zero sense, lol. Either someone's in charge or no-one is, if that's communism to you, you came to the wrong place |
|
|
|
Thanks to the universal availability of DRAM, those racks can now go up all over the world. That's the key difference.
Exactly Maybe we can't level the whole playing field definitively, but that's no argument for not taking the steps that can be made towards a free-er market in mining (and that's true of all markets for all goods, there will always be cat and mouse protectionist games being played, the current cartel based world trade paradigm being the most salient example, for instance) |
|
|
|
It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter.
Sorry to burst your liar-tarian non-aggression principle bubble Peter, sorry, I mean Jonald, but the entire point of Bitcoin's consensus rules is to force certain values and parameters on the network SLIPPING |
|
|
|
This wouldn't stop people like Bitmain though, let's say this happens with a new algorithm and they are able to create an asic, they just don't tell anyone and split there machines across each of chains. Sure they'll make difficulty increase but they are still going to be able to Target these other chains. If it is cpu bound then we have tons of cpu servers popping up and server rooms focusing on it and still able to spread the hash upon different chains. It seems to me the idea is that yes they wouldn't be able to get the full block but someone could most likely still dominate most chains, making this all a moot point.
I'm not sure if you understand exactly why Bitmain have such a monopoly. ASICs are proprietary technology, i.e. Bitfury & Bitmain's designs are a trade secret. General purpose computers (like CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs) are freely available to anyone. Sure, those with better access to cheap electricity, warehouse space and the money to pay for those still have a competitive advantage, but there are diminshing returns while any economic activity scales-up. A combination of ASIC resitant PoW and changing the blockchain from linear to a tree would stop miners leveraging the advantages that monopolised ASICs give them. @Burt that's a hell of a lot of words and sentences to say "because". Try and fit some actual content into your posts please, you're wasting space in the debate if you're going to take up that much space to say "No need to argue" |
|
|
|
|
You're already wrong, or else the Bitcoin network would still be running version 0.1
Feel free to make any coherent arguments
|
|
|
|
You must not have been here very long. As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin. They come and then they go. None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen. You must not have been here very long either. Every change proposed and implemented to Bitcoin has been accepted up to Segwit, BIP is an abbrevation for Bitcoin Improvement Program, and how many BIPs have been implemented in version 14 of Bitcoin, Burt? More than a dozen, right? What you're really saying is "hard forks aren't the original design". Thanks for enlightening us (except we knew that already). Who's going to continue the bugfix maintenance fork of Bitcoin Core version 14, you? If the Core Bitcoin devs propose a hard fork, and it gains sufficient support, you can kiss your immutability dynamics goodbye, son |
|
|
|
Yep, except - FPGA's are general purpose processing chips, available to anyone, not just monopolistic manufacturing specialist as is the case with ASICs
- With the right choice of hashing algorithm, FPGAs don't really improve hashes per watt of electricity anyway
|
|
|
|
So my question was what to do until then. With my miners. To support SegWit. How about answering my question and refraining from unfruitful comments?
You already have the answer, really. Point your miners at a pool signalling for Segwit, or solo mine for Segwit. Unless you have a warehouse full of modern efficient miners, option 2 isn't such a great choice. |
|
|
|
It's well known that Bitcoin PoW can be pooled.
And the solution to pooling is tree-based blockchains instead of linear based blockchains. This is about buying time to implement that solution, not solving it altogether.
Do we even know that this can be done? I much rather see it proven before making a huge game changing decision, rather than just changing algorithm pissing off the industry and botnets making it rich during the beginning of a change. Peter Todd and Sergio Lerner have independently developed tree-chain proof of concepts, but hard implementations even for testing aren't available as far as I know (and you could predict that some alternative cryptocoin would have implemented it by now if that were the case) The principles are sound though. Basically, instead of having a main chain, with everyone working only on the next block, there are multiple strands to the chain. Similar to the side-chain idea, but without a main-chain > sub-chain hierarchy. Every separate strand of the chain is equal. Done that way, the system can be designed to mainatain a balance of the number of chain-strands needed to serve the amount of mining demand. Pooled mining becomes pointless, as difficulty on each strand is kept low enough to allow anyone to mine a whole block to themself. |
|
|
|
What's the need for this when BU is oh-so popular with real users, and not just with the shill accounts or sybil nodes?  Desperate, jonald. You're SLIPPING homie |
|
|
|
|
It's well known that Bitcoin PoW can be pooled.
And the solution to pooling is tree-based blockchains instead of linear based blockchains. This is about buying time to implement that solution, not solving it altogether.
|
|
|
|
However, the economies of scale to work out the chip, make prototypes, and put it on a board are such that only from a certain level of performance-over-CPU this becomes interesting. So on chains that will not go to the moon, CPU/GPU mining may hold out with a sufficiently sophisticated hash function. From the moment you hope to go to very high prices, and hence, very high block rewards, this investment will always become useful.
Point is, however, why try to get consensus over that with bitcoin ? If you want that, there are several alt coins *doing that already*.
Well, there's quadrillions of SHA256 hashes already protecting Bitcoin's holders, that's one reason. The altcoins *doing that already* don't have the breadth and depth of developer talent that Bitcoin has. 2 major developers at Bitcoin Core (Peter Todd and Luke Dashjr) have already expressed support for a PoW change, when you look at the present situation it's not a case of if, but when a BU hardfork happens. More Bitcoin devs will follow their lead. The other reason I've already stated; miners have started to try to push the users around. Segwit ready nodes are the majority of the Bitcoin network, have been for several weeks and it continues to rise. |
|
|
|
That's right, but with how well known Bitcoin is known now compared to 2009, a temporary period of decentralised mining will exist.
Early bitcoin usage was a small user base oligarchy. That's my point, it won't be now, as millions of Bitcoin users would mine instead of only Satoshi, Hal and Ray Dillinger (as it was in 2009). Difficulty will increase, and people will still point their miners at mining pools.
And mining was still less centralised when pools first came about than it is today. Besides, using tree-chains instead of linear chains could solve that problem, either for a p2pool share-chain or for the actual blockchain itself. This is about cutting out the cancer, not the full course of chemo, which comes later. One mans tyrant is another mans protector of freedom.
The current miners are only protecting themselves. Out. They will be gone. |
|
|
|
The only thing a POW change will achieve is a temporary reset to a level playing field.
That's right, but with how well known Bitcoin is known now compared to 2009, a temporary period of decentralised mining will exist. Could that last long enough before 3D printing of ASIC chips is possible? Maybe not, but I doubt it would take one more PoW change until we got to that point, and then the game changes completely. To paraphrase: "The tree of decentralised cryptocurrency must occasionally be watered with the blood of ASIC mining tyrants" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
