Oh dear, dear.
 |
|
|
|
You have failed to understand what consensus is when you refer to participants as rebels. ASIC tech and the "cartel" are at the mercy of the network participants not the other way around.
In essence making all existing ASIC use for BTC obsolete and make the old BTC network compromised and useless.
Sorry, I believe that you failed to understand. All the ASIC and mining installations will remain perfectly usable with the 25 M chain, and would mine it because there would be no other chain that they can mine.Ater the "Red Button" solution there will be two fully functional versions of bitcoin, but one will have a 300 PH/s network, the other will have a puny CPU network. Even "hero miners" with older ASIC miners in the attic will be unable to come to the help of the second one. BTC network used to fund accounts would be under suspicion of double spent coins due to the "cartel" having over 51% and closer to 100% network control. BTC network as it was known will have become defunct.
Whether the attack succeeds or not, the concentration of hashing power in the "Big Bitcoin" network will be the same as it was before the fork point. The change to the halving schedule will not affect the possibility of double-spend. In fact, that possibility already is not negligible now. (Imagine that some hacker steals 500 kBTC from the US or Chinese government, who is determined to get them back.) The risk of double-spend will be much higher in the "Small Bitcoin" CPU-only network, since an external agent could gain majority mining power with a relatively small investment. I am making reference to the fact that your projected idea is improbable and unacceptable by existing network participants and that if any changes would be done to the network apart from the larger block size would be due to some unknown circumstance such that would compromise the BTC network as it is today. Ultimately if the need presents itself the BTC network will face all challenges with consensus of network participants and not at the muse of someone who has little understanding as to what is involved in profitable mining. If you are sincere in understanding why your speculative musings would not work in reality then as suggested, you should take this to a more appropriate part of the site as you will be properly schooled by those who are willing to help you in your search for understanding. |
|
|
|
if the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what Jorge suggest.
You cannot kill a cryptocurrency, remember?  If the idealists do as above, there will be a "rebel bitcoin" with a tiny mining network, and the "cartel's bitcoin", with all the old hashpower (since the ASIC miners would not have other choice than to mine it). Guess which one will keep most of the value of the original bitcoins. It is like the Captain "defeating" a mutiny by taking off alone in a small lifeboat, and declaring it to be the real ship. Moreover, even the rebels will still have their coins waiting for them on the cartel's chain; so why would they not sell and trade them? Ignoring those coins would be their loss, not the cartel's.  you forget that they would instantly have over 51% of the network closer to 100%  and there would be no confidence as to the transactions integrity. BTW what I stated was the outcome to a real proposal if the odd chance that the present mining algorithm would have been compromised via a back door. In essence making all existing ASIC use for BTC obsolete and make the old BTC network compromised and useless.I don't understand the first paragraph. Yes, the rebels will control 100% of their puny all-CPU network (which the cartel could probably squash by renting some could computing for a couple million dollars, if it cared to). But 100% of the old hashpower will be mining the cartel's 25 M chain, just as before the fork; and the rebels cannot do anything against them. Each client would have to either upgrade to the cartel's software, or upgrade to the rebel's software (or to both, after cloning the wallet); clients who keep the original software will be unable to use their coins. Yes, this is called "Red Button plan" or something like that. It is not a defense, or even a deterrent like the nuclear mutually assured destruction; it is just a ridiculous form of suicide. In other words. If the conditions present themselves the btc blockchain network and participants will make the most prudent choice that will have majority consensus. No one given the option would eat spoiled food or in this case trade on a defunct chain.
The problem is that power is asymmetric: a small group of miners can block the network and hold all users' coins hostage, whereas no group of users can stop the miners from doing it without hurting themselves a lot more. According to the attack plan outlined (which is just one possibility), the 21 M chain would become defunct immediately after the fork, while the 25 M chain would continue working without a glitch. Exchanges that would fail to move over would cause panic in the ALT coin space as exchanges would not know as to the authenticity of the BTC being traded for alts effectively making alts valueless.
There would be no confusion, because any exchange that fails to switch will have its wallets frozen and all BTC deposits and withdrawals blocked. The coins that are inside the exchanges can be traded normally, because the trades do not involve the blockchain. When the exchange switches to the 25 M chain, it will find its hot and cold wallets waiting there, and it will be able to execute withdrawals in that chain. Clients then will have to upgrade in order to use the coins withdrawn. If the attack succeeds, life will continue in the 25 M chain almost as if there had been no fork. If the attack fails, and all miners go back to the 21 M chain, people will be able to use that chain again, but their accounts will be reset to the pre-fork state. Thus, any payments made using the 25 M chain will be cancelled, and there will be real losses (like the double spend against OKPay in the 2013 fork). This will be another reason why most everybody will want the attack to succeed, once it has been sustained for a day or so and enough people have used the 25 M chain. There is a third possible outcome: the cartel stops jamming the 21 M chain (e..g because of defections, or "hero miners" coming to the rescue), but only part of the miners go back to it. In that case the two versions of bitcoin will remain viable; each copy of one's coins can be spent or moved independently of the other copy. The original price should also split between the two, and the miners will migrate between the chains until either alternative is just as lucrative to mine as the other. (I wonder if they can be merge-mined?) I question your power of reasoning. You have failed to understand what consensus is when you refer to participants as rebels. ASIC tech and the "cartel" are at the mercy of the network participants not the other way around. I am starting to see what people have been talking about. In essence making all existing ASIC use for BTC obsolete and make the old BTC network compromised and useless. BTC network used to fund accounts would be under suspicion of double spent coins due to the "cartel" having over 51% and closer to 100% network control. BTC network as it was known will have become defunct. |
|
|
|
Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.
Pool's operator's do not = miners. |
|
|
|
if the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what Jorge suggest.
You cannot kill a cryptocurrency, remember? If the idealists do as above, there will be a "rebel bitcoin" with a tiny mining network, and the "cartel's bitcoin", with all the old hashpower (since the ASIC miners would not have other choice than to mine it). Guess which one will keep most of the value of the original bitcoins. It is like the Captain "defeating" a mutiny by taking off alone in a small lifeboat, and declaring it to be the real ship. Moreover, even the rebels will still have their coins waiting for them on the cartel's chain; so why would they not sell and trade them? Ignoring those coins would be their loss, not the cartel's. you forget that they would instantly have over 51% of the network closer to 100% and there would be no confidence as to the transactions integrity. P.S. considering they also would own the asic manufacturing and technology for the old hashing algorithm. BTW what I stated was the outcome to a real proposal if the odd chance that the present mining algorithm would have been compromised via a back door. In essence making all existing ASIC use for BTC obsolete and make the old BTC network compromised and useless. In other words. If the conditions present themselves the btc blockchain network and participants will make the most prudent choice that will have majority consensus. No one given the option would eat spoiled food or in this case trade on a defunct chain. P.S.S Exchanges that would fail to move over would cause panic in the ALT coin space as exchanges would not know as to the authenticity of the BTC being traded for alts effectively making alts valueless. |
|
|
|
That is not what I see...  |
|
|
|
(It is only recently that the top 51% became all-Chinese.)
how do you figure that the top 51% of hashing is Chinese? I don't think he understands that miners can change pools. Pools do not equal miners. As I have said Jorge does not understand what miners want or what options they have. |
|
|
|
(It is only recently that the top 51% became all-Chinese.)
how do you figure that the top 51% of hashing is Chinese? Perhaps Jorge will answer that by using a page out of the UT Chanel conspiracy play book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AXJxdBwvm0 |
|
|
|
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin" The funds, and anyone who only holds bitcoins without moving them, can just wait for the outcome and then upgrade or not, as appropriate. Like other active bitcoin users, the exchanges and payment processors will have to choose between upgrading their software and working only with the 25 M chain, or sticking to the 21 M chain and having all their coins frozen, until if and when the "attack" fails. While trading inside each exchange could continue with no problems, all bitcoin withdrawals and deposits would be blocked. For those companies too, switching (and urging clients to switch) should be a no-brainer. If what you say is true then why has it not happened yet? Because if the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what Jorge suggest. |
|
|
|
in any case, if one small group starts to mine this 25mill BTC bitcoin fork, it doesn't it mean everyone else can't continue to mine the original 21mill BTC bitcoin. And there would be HUGE incentive for poeple like me (highly invested but never got a miner) to get a miner and add hashrate to the original 21mill BTC bitcoin.
it would be like this massive cryptonic-hashrate-cyber war
fucking wonderful!
I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread. It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower. WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable. So, for the individual miner, he either joins the cartel on the 25 M chain, and keeps earning as much BTC as before, or keeps mining the old chain, and has all his blocks orphaned by the cartel jamming. For the typical miner, switching should be a no-brainer. Moreover, each client who has N coins on the original chain will get another N coins on the 25 M chain, accessible through teh same keys, whether he wants them or not. So each client can upgrade his software (at any time, before or after the fork) and use his coins, or refuse to upgrade and have his coins blocked until if and when the "attack" fails. On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent. Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer. If the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what you suggest. |
|
|
|
its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...
The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit. On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue. The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price. The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started. Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic... You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.  |
|
|
|
who bought all the coin  i thought we will never breach 255 ? were the bear sleeping ?  |
|
|
|
Is it just me? Or does $250 in 2015 feel a lot like $5 in 2012?
feels more like the 2$ bottom  That was at $210 |
|
|
|
Is it just me? Or does $250 in 2015 feel a lot like $5 in 2012?
indeed. |
|
|
|
Looks like its all over, just saw this bitcoiner running from the huobi exchange minutes ago....  Don't be that guy  |
|
|
|
same here.
where is he?
Hmmm down again today 2015 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
