With both Peter Todd and Luke Dashjr already talking about a PoW change, I expect a majority of Bitcoin Core developers will eventually follow.


And the semantic arguments are somewhat couched in reality: if Bitcoin Core moved to an ASIC resistant PoW scheme, it would be better to accept the "altcoin" tag and move on. With no one left developing the old Bitcoin Core (i.e. with the SHA256 proof-of-work that we know so well), then the "original" Bitcoin wouldn't be labelled BTC anymore either. Then, every coin is an altcoin, the way it should be really.


These are all just labels, something to call the tech. What really matters is what the code is capable of.

The best design, and the best code, wins in the cryptocurrency free-market. Not the best brand image.

You could make the argument that's exactly what's happening.


But what difference does the name of the currency make if Bitcoin Core devs accept that changing the PoW is the only way to get rid of miners behaving badly? Who will patch Bitcoin Core when Bitcoin "Respawn" is the only codebase with active developers?


Don't forget: the return of CPU mining would be a healthy return to a fully decentralised Bitcoin network.

It makes no difference, the ASIC miners should have seen this coming.

If they don't do what the majority of users want, and choose a foolish hard fork instead, then that's just a risk of the business they're in. I won't be crying for them, the miners have behaved like a cartel.

And if Bitfury really wanted to be responsible to the Bitcoin network, they could have sold chips or miners to the public, which they only ever did with their early 55nm mining ASIC chips. They have themselves to blame, their strategy could have been much better.

I had dollar signs in my eyes at first. I quickly discovered something I never expected; that the ability to print money is perhaps the most influential form of power there is.

And when I discovered how that power has been abused, and how the abuse is hidden from the public, I've never looked back.

"What's in a name? Would not a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?"

You can keep the name, we will keep the truth

Too simplistic gentlemen


And it's being discussed here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0


I am strongly in favour of switching the PoW hashing algorithm to Keccak, CuckooCycle, Equihash, or whatever has the best balance of proven hash algorithm & difficulty  to develop an ASIC. And I think it should be done before any BU hardfork, any miners unhappy with that should've thought realistically that this day would come.


ASICs begone. The CPU mining revolution will be beautiful, Satoshi warned against the development of sole-purpose SHA256 hashing ASIC processors, and today we can see why.



All Bitcoiners will mine BTC with their regular PC again. Let's do it.

I am clearly not communicating what I'm saying well enough, or you just don't want to hear it


If the miners are claiming that LN is their problem, they're lying. It doesn't make sense.



Presumably your explanation will be that these successful businessmen are sufficiently idiotic that they are incapable of understanding, despite being successful businessmen

That's perfectly logical, but the real antagonistic miners are clearly not interested in thinking through the consequences of something as pesky as the code (and the consequences of the code).

Do you really think the behaviour of Bitmain is a consequence of them reading and understanding either the BU code or the Lightning code? Come on, now

You're naive


Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?


The truth is, miners like ideas such as BIP100 or EC, as they know they will have far more control.




Did you know: when someone wants to deceive to get what they really want, telling lies is a requirement  

Significant changes to the Bitcoin protocol were soft-forked into the coin only last year, and in 2015, and in 2014


That completely contradicts your argument, 100%. Spare us your bloviated replies, you're talking nonsense.

I agree.

But we must keep in mind the serious nature of who our opponent/s really are. All we know about the opponent/s is that it's unlikely to be Bitmain operating on it's own, and that they're very determined (considering the overall confluence of pressures being exerted against Bitcoin over the past 2.5 years, if they're not all working together, they may as well be), and so therefore must have some incredibly strong incentive to achieve their goals.

That taken together makes the unknown opponent dangerously adept and unpredictable IMO. Planning for the full range of "IRL side-channel attacks" is potentially vital, and I'm very concerned that an opponent sufficiently formidable may throw everything they have at their problem if their efforts are continually frustrated (and it looks to be emerging that way, I can't see the Bitcoin economy getting behind BU as things stand, our opponent/s are likely more pissed than the last time it failed)

You do realise that the PBOC prints electronic fiat at zero cost?

This isn't relevant, create a thread in the Politics section for your derailing

It's hard to tell. As a result of the totalitarian regime, the Potempkin Village phenomenon could very well dictate all information that the outside world is provided.

e.g., there's rumours of huge gulags where the majority industrial output of North Korea is produced by the prisoners. I very much doubt those people can even access the rumoured intranet, but I hope you're all noticing the prevalent theme: these are all rumours, 1st hand evidence is essentially impossible to obtain. Who knows what real stories might emerge if or when the North Korean regime collapses.

you're one of those people who think crime is as depicted on TV; crime occurs, victim is able to phone the police, and the police turn up just in time to catch the blundering criminal? Grown ups are talking

For a similar reason you're giving not to pre-empt it: building support for the new idea. It's possible that too many people will be psychologically impacted by the success of the attack, and consequently do what you're suggesting is wrong with my approach (despite the fact I've made no emotional arguements at all): allow emotions to dictate their decision instead of reason.

If we engage people to support pre-emptive action, a determined mindset would replace a fatalistic reaction. It's about harnessing a positive psychological feedback loop instead of a negative psychological feedback loop.



Including Bitmain's current hashrate %? Clearly not. A PoW fork only needs to get the support of the miners who don't want to be ruled by a malign majority, although I'm seeing an obvious problem; how to measure that. Setting a block height activation would invite counter measures. Not sure how it could be achieved.

It's profoundly unreasonable to pass off unbacked assertions as any form of reason


I've provided sound reasoning already, refute it.

I am being pragmatic

Bitmain could pre-emptively hardfork themselves during an unknown 24 hour timeframe, with 75% of the hashrate and a pathological desire to destroy Bitcoin, why do they need to even pretend to be cautious?


We'd have very little useful time available to turn that situation around, but I strongly suspect disenfranchised miners would be only too happy to support the PoW change, once it's potentially too late.

I fail to see how that argument could not convince all who percieve they will lose out in a PoW change situation to support pre-emptive action.

Did you hear Bitmain's recent announcement about a mining facility that will push their hashrate share up to 80%? Possibly hyperbole, and I'm fully aware too of the temporary nature of hashrate shares, but the status quo is looking decidedly less secure also.


I suspect the remaining well intentioned miners will either accept the BU gruel, and/or accept the inevitable necessity of pre-emptive action. What makes you think Bitmain would honour the 3 difficulty adjustment periods that BU needs to activate it's fork? They've been so incredibly honorable and straight up to now, huh?

Do you really believe that alternative attacks won't get used by an exasperated opponent?


Imagine a group of "concerned nation states" collaborate on issuing an international arrest warrant for the Bitcoin devs for "conspiracy to launder money", or "conspiracy to fund terrorist organisations"? How long do you think that would take to draw up, in the event, 6 months?

What are you going to say if that happens? "No-onnnnnnne could possssssssibly have predicted that!" Again, except me, apparently.


This ceased to be a computing problem a long time ago, we wouldn't be in this situation if solving computing problems was all we needed to overcome this situation. The $ 5 wrench is poised to get cracked over Bitcoin's soft head, and the inability to take in this particular big picture could be the difference between a deft sidestep and the absolute end of the Bitcoin project.


If we sit on our hands taking the moral high ground, predators will predate. Are you understanding what I'm saying to you, or what?