Ehh... plenty of studies actually.
We pretty much know every chemicals release it induces in the brain and their effects.

Eaten.

Less than 250 readers on the Bitcoin subreddit, on a Saturday afternoon (US)!!

The hype is going down....

Yeah. I'm a cool kid.

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Miners have a really important weight when comes the time to decide to change something in the network EXCEPT in regards to the proof-of-work.

That's not the same thing at all.
(And has already been discussed when talking about the support of the majority of the network.)
If the nodes and miners had exactly the same decision power for everything, then the network wouldn't be secured by any POW.

Please stop taking every sentence out of context.

No, this is where Litecoiners are misguided. If really SCRYPT is a better POW (and by that I mean enough to move the market) then Bitcoiners won't let their investment in the blockchain melt under the sun... they will just change the POW.

Please keep in mind that the mention of SCRYPT in my initial post was just an example.

I see, so our only disagreement is in terms of degree.

Suppose a reason exists (whatever it is) to change the proof of work.

The devs agree on this and decide there will be a hardfork in 2 months, or the equivalent in block time.
The main clients are upgraded in consequence.

Now, while you argue that the miners might have an incentive to keep the current POW, I would use your Bitcoin valuation as a counter argument.
There's no way in HELL I would let the miners decide what POW should be used if it can reduce the value of my BTCs, or in other words, if it's bad for Bitcoin.
That's a billion dollar argument right there.

IMO, if the only opponents in a change of POW are the miners, then it isn't controversial.
(And it's becoming less and less so, as the mining power is becoming more centralised with each mining generation.)

Remember the hardfork caused by the bug in version 7 VS 8?

So, how do you call pre Qt 7? Bitcoin?

How do you call the new one? New-Bitcoin?

I still call it Bitcoin, because it's based on the same blockchain and a majority of nodes accept it.
You don't need a consensus. (I'm not even sure we have one now. Are you sure there isn't any pre 8 nodes around?)

Anyhow, this is going dangerously far from my initial subject.
I would be happy to further argue with you on this if you create another thread. 

Don't worry, I do.
You could have tried to re-read everything, instead of trying to be a smart-ass.

I'll summarize:

I said that the blockchain was the important part of Bitcoin, not the POW.

You said that Bitcoin was only the rules that a majority of nodes were agreeing to follow.

To which I said that that was a given. In order words, it was assumed in both cases, either a change in the blockchain, or in the POW, that said change would be followed by the majority of the network.

Are we clear here? The scenario is assuming a nodes majority. This is clearly stated my original post.
(Powers with the nodes, not with the miners)

Then you talked about a hard ford, how you can do it without a majority of miners and what not.
Well yeah, obviously. But it doesn't change what I've said before.

That doesn't contradict anything that I've said. What's your point?

That's a given that you need to have the majority of the network behind you.

You can create an exact replica of Bitcoin and it would be an alt-chain because the blockchain is blank.

You could however hardfork the current protocol and (assuming there is a majority of nodes, of course) you can still call it Bitcoin if you are based on the blockchain.
Which is exactly what happened in the previous hardforks.

No, Bitcoin is the blockchain.

That being said, I don't see any reason to move away from SHA256.

As "myself" said in another chat, this is the $96 wall:



 

Edit: I'm NOT arguing in favour of a fork. Just clarifying some facts that have been misrepresented recently.

There seems to be a little misconception floating around concerning the miners and their power in the network.

"Miners are too heavily invested in SHA256 and won't allow any proof-of-work changes."

This is wrong.

But first, let's see how the miners can veto pretty much everything in the network.

The network assumes a transaction is valid and secure once it has been approved by a (or multiple) miner.
Suppose Bob sends Alice 10 BTC.
The miner receives this transaction, along with countless orders, and decides whether or not he will include it in the block he is currently making (by doing the proof-of-work).
This is how he can veto pretty much everything: he can choose to ignore some transactions for any reason. (Which is why you should include a fee in a transaction...)

Obviously, this veto power is owned only by the miner finding a block. If you don't or can't find a block, your decisions are inconsequent.

Let's make sure everyone understand this, because this is the important part.
In order to veto anything, you must first find a block, which is doing the proof-of-work.

Thus, as a miner, you can't prevent anyone from changing the proof-of-work; you have power only when you are finding a block.

Those with the power to change the proof-of-work are the nodes (which can be miners, but also everyone else on the network).
If, for any reason, we decided to change the proof-of-work from SHA256 to SCRYPT, upgraded nodes would drop any block made with SHA256.

Those with the powers to veto pretty much everything would then be the new miners, those working with the new proof-of-work.


To the new investors in ASIC's: I hope you understand what it means.  

AdamstgBit has been an incredible reliable signal these last few weeks.
(short signal, that is...)

When's the $180?

Really?

My impression was quite to the contrary... if it doesn't go up soon, it's going down. 

You hear that?

*cricket*

That's the sound of the hype slowly slipping away.

 

What am I enjoying exactly?