The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it. So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.
A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners. Yes, you are right, the system is more complex, and there are also the users (people buying and selling coins essentially). But the Nash equilibrium is essentially this one, where the miners can only stick to the original protocol Why? Who evaluates that they have done so? Of course, this equilibrium can be broken, which is exactly the case of "forking away" and hoping for success in the market, but it needs a form of collusion between certain miners, and enough users.
As I said many times, this is a NATURAL way of evolving crypto: forking away, taking the risk in the market. With a PoW coin, this has to be initiated by miners.
Yeah? Watch UASF
Economic actors do technical analysis on coinmarketcap, or use any other betting strategy. The debasement is never part of these considerations apart psychologically maybe. The market price includes already all debasement
How does the market come to learn about debasement? |
|
|
|
In fact dinofelis it seems clear to me you are simply suffering from a strong Mining DelusionIf miners are decentralized, that means, many of them, each with a small hash rate, variable (today you are a miner, tomorrow, you aren't) and anonymous, then miners are locked into the Nash equilibrium of immutability. In a truly decentralized system, there's no way to "come to an agreement" because the entities are supposed not to collude, not to make agreements ! The only way to have agreements in a large decentralized system, is to have a central authority proposing a SPECIFIC change, and no other, and have people come to a from of "voting": both are centralized protocols. Miners all have the same strategy: maximize their profits. Why do they not increase the subsidy back to 50BTC? I'm sure they can all unilaterally agree to do that. However, what is wrong in bitcoin is this:
"Because the miners do not form an identifiable set, they cannot have discretion over the rules determining transaction validity. " (from your link)
But miners DO form an identifiable set right now. There are 20 of them, of which 5 are majority already. People are cursing them, or begging them, to "do" something. Hashrate is fluid, remember Ghash? Mining pools are identifiable, yes but they will not make any decision that risks endangering the bottom line of hashers. |
|
|
|
The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it. So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.
A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners. Everyone else are blind users, correct? Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is.  Yes, because "validating nodes" and "economic actors" have nothing to do with one another.
Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement. Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges. Different beasts all together. Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.
Pray tell me sir how economic actors weight the value of the coins they purchase and whether or not the monetary base has not been inflated to oblivion? |
|
|
|
In fact dinofelis it seems clear to me you are simply suffering from a strong Mining Delusion |
|
|
|
Huh. This is a funny thread. Let me chime in. But on top of that, miners are locked up into a Nash equilibrium of steady-state. It is not simple for them to leave the existing consensus unless they can be in a cartel and decide upon something.
And what exactly locks them up into this equilibrium? Core was the central authority until a few years ago, writing the only code out there. So there was no game theory, it was a totally centralized system until recently. The only "game-theoretical" aspect that was in there for miners, was the signalling system, which was essentially Core taking the lead in the cartel formation. And ONLY miners voted on signalling. In other words, Core being the software monopolist, had total power over the rules. So had Core released a version with a 1000 BTC block subsidy everyone would have followed along? librium ; only a concerted action (formerly done by Core, the software monopolist and central decider of bitcoin) can move them all together to another equilibrium (change of protocol). Economic actors, individually, have everything to gain in following the miner's protocol. Their Nash equilibrium follows that of the miners. They are out of equilibrium if they decide upon anything else. On one hand you propose that miners are kings and rulers, disparage the role of validating nodes but then suggest that the economic actors have a choice of whether or not to follow miners. You realize that those statements both contradict each other? |
|
|
|
The purchasing of bitcoins in Venezuela is taking off like crazy, look at the chart in the link below: http://themerkle.com/venezuela-experiences-a-surge-in-bitcoin-volume/The whole KimDotCom filesharing service based on BTC micropayments will hopefully drive adoption and price. I'm hopeful that the future is somewhat brighter than that chart suggests. What do you guys think about the potential impact of those two things on the price short to mid term? in bitcoin world a contentious 2MB (or even more) HF is brewing with eventually changing the algo also. that could bring so much PR disaster that all of your points vanish in no time. (sorry for OT) Yeah right And who's leading it, Roger Ver?  With what miners?  doesnt matter who is leading it, my cat could lead it. there is such a strong demand for a 2MB-fork that it would get instantly a sizeable marketcap, if you like that or not. and that means PR disaster. Strong demand ? |
|
|
|
The purchasing of bitcoins in Venezuela is taking off like crazy, look at the chart in the link below: http://themerkle.com/venezuela-experiences-a-surge-in-bitcoin-volume/The whole KimDotCom filesharing service based on BTC micropayments will hopefully drive adoption and price. I'm hopeful that the future is somewhat brighter than that chart suggests. What do you guys think about the potential impact of those two things on the price short to mid term? in bitcoin world a contentious 2MB (or even more) HF is brewing with eventually changing the algo also. that could bring so much PR disaster that all of your points vanish in no time. (sorry for OT) Yeah right And who's leading it, Roger Ver? With what miners? |
|
|
|
The only people who could damage fungibility at this point are the Core developers and the handful of dominant mining pool ops. These are the parties to whom you should be directing your plea. Directing the attacker to do what you say reads like a letter to santa.
That is factually incorrect seeing as the Core developers are the principal drivers behind efforts to improve fungibility. I'm not directing the attacker to do anything but consider his options in case someone manages to rile up enough loud mouths. I didn't create this thread for you trolls to pollute it with Blockstream/Core/Blocksize non sense either |
|
|
|
|
Yesterday there was a suggestion to get miners to blacklist the stolen coins. It is plausible Bitfinex might want to try and make this happen. It's possible some miners lost funds in Bitfinex also which may make this more attractive.
The hacker should have a couple of choices to prevent this from happening. They could either negotiate with bitfinex to keep say 10% of the coins or they can thwart blacklisting by getting the coins into circulation.
This will involve an initial haircut of 25% (30kbtc). Use a percentage of it to pay varying moderate/small amounts of approx 0.1 BTC to many of the most active addresses in Bitcoin to protect against reorg by getting them linked into transactions. Spend about 100 BTC on this.
Then they should create a series of nLockTimed transactions that pay 6 BTC in fees every 4 blocks for the next year for a total of 10000 BTC in fees. These transactions should pay large amounts (e.g. 50 BTC) to randomly selected active users from major Bitcoin forums spread out across the transactions.
This incentivizes the users to fight any blacklisting attempts and the hacker can pay themselves in the same chain of transactions.
I'm sorry for the losses of everyone involved and it's unfortunate to see two companies likely go down with this (BitGo & BitFinex) but it is essential that Bitcoin fungibility be preserved.
Any attempt to damage it needs to be thwarted.
|
|
|
|
|
13eHbWym1L8qkaCAySsPwMeCQpkvqVUCR5
Who am I kidding? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
It is really unfortunate that, with so many people running around on Reddit and BTCT that we are unable to keep a higher node count. If half of us were to run a single node, the situation would definitely improve.
That would require a lot of people who don't own any Bitcoins to run nodes...  you mean like you, who gets paid in fiat and monero? anyway.. LOL there are 2 million bitcoin users and 5k-6k nodes.. Actually there are probably much more |
|
|
|
dang this is bearish.
hash rate will drop by~4% with KNC gone?
how many others will turn off their small and medium sizes rigs and yield to the chinese mage mining farm?
They are filing for bankruptcy because of "high uncertainty around the block halving" and because of "continued mining pressure from china". How is that bearish? Right? A bunch of scammers going out of business because they couldn't get their Bitcoin Classic bailout |
|
|
|
Here is hoping you are correct, Adam. Since BTC and LTC are moving in lockstep and trading at odds with XMR/ETH etc.. it makes sense to buy a little LTC if you really believe bitcoin is about to rally hard.
After three and a half years of accumulation I have become patient.
I thought you were contemplating selling because BorgStreamCore or w/e? What are you doing on a censored forum btw? |
|
|
|
|
$GBTC trading at nearly $700/BTC
|
|
|
|
this is bad
|
|
|
|
What is it? They are testing big blocks in another chain or simulator, or what? this is a testnet for segwit. before a release to public or on the mainnet Core is testing all the improvements. Do you know how much of it is witness data and how relevant this would be to the kind of usage patterns we have today? Are these kinds of segwit block sizes perhaps more relevant for when LN is launched? The kind of usage we have today doesn't fill a 1MB block segwit or not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
