Bitcoin Forum
November 13, 2019, 08:23:26 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Defensive Nuclear Weapon - Armageddon Avoidance - Proof-of-Coinbase -poison pill  (Read 2862 times)
jaybny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 408
Merit: 250


Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 01:48:31 AM
Last edit: March 19, 2017, 06:53:39 PM by jaybny
 #1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13j-TcKdZ5dM5QYQDHFEyM5F65Bat-EaA4AM-_vCWaG8/edit?usp=sharing

Bitcoins Nuclear Option - A Defensive Weapon for Armageddon Avoidance   
Proof-of-Coinbase (POC) -  Poison Pill   

Quote
BTC refers to the post-fork bitcoin-core / SegWit fork of bitcoin
BTU refers to the post-fork bitcoins unlimited fork of bitcoin

Bitcoin Nuclear Option (BNO) is a Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) repellent system. It is a built-in nuclear weapon that will act as the last line of defense during a post contentious hard fork in the face of a BU 51% attack against BTC, when BTU has at least 85% hash-power. It is a poison pill, that when made known to the “tl;dr” BU supporters and miners, it will act as a deterrent and we will avoid the fork in the first place.

Assumptions
BU is technically incompetent as a whole
BU is actively attacking a $18 billion dollar asset owned by all humanity
BU will attack with intent to destroy BTC and rename itself from BTU to BTC
Bitcoin will die if above is true

Summary
BNO is a bitcoin fork that activates with the same protocol as BU hardfork. The post fork BTC will not be POW for even a moment. Once the fork occurs there are two coins BTU, with sha256 POW and BTC with POC. NBO activation in core code will be based on 95% signaling, and since its post-fork, BU signaling blocks will not count. All BTC forks by core would essentially be non-contentious.

Objective: To stop bitcoin from forking.
Mechanism: A poison pill that activates with BTU fork.
What:  A change from POW to POC on BU activation
Result: Existence alone should compel miners to avoid BU signaling.
How: POC gives all the money to non BU signaling miners, making it unprofitable to signa BU   

If successful, BU will never be activated, similar to the success of Nuclear Weapons as a defensive deterrent.
BNO is an offensive weapon meant to prevent an attack the same way nuclear weapons are used as defensive deterrent mechanism.



Playbook
BNO takes the playbook for the Chinese Central Bank.
 
Chinese Central Bank “manipulates” it currency by setting caps and floors. However the yuan trades in many free open markets, so how does it actually defend against the cap?

Instead of fighting the market head-on, it uses a strategy where the market itself never tries to test them. It makes it known to the public, that it went short trillions of dollars of call options at the cap price.  Market assumes that China will defend it position, so trying to buy above that price is all risk no reward.

They avoid a costly battle against the open market by pre-emptivley putting a “poison pill” at their cap price, that they would have no choice but to defend with everything they have.

BNO is a poison pill, where its existence alone should avoid it ever getting signaled!

BNO Strategy
In the context of a bitcoin armageddon. ie; a post fork and imminent 51% percent attack of BTC from BU leaders
Implementing BNO in core and describing its effects, should deter BU activation.
  • Threat itself disincentives miners from signaling BU
  • POC rewards miners for signed blocks without a BU signal
  • Best case - BU never signals, the status quo - cold-car
  • Worst case - BU and BNO gets activated, and BTC instead of getting killed by a BU 51% attack, is now POC and immune from BTU hash-power attack


Activation
-- BNO get activated on BU activation
-- The first post fork block is no longer POW, but POC.

Each pre-fork mined block with BU signal, gives that miner one less opportunity to “mine” post-fork blocks in BTC.

Assuming majority of bitcoin economic activity remains with BTC, BU miners just lost most of their infrastructure investment and are limited in the number of block-rewards they will ever receive in BTC. On the other hand, miners whose blocks did not signal BU will get their full share of  the remaining block-rewards and TX fees for the foreseeable future.

Effects
Before describing POC and debating its merits, it is important to understand that by giving away large amounts of future bitcoins to non BU signaling block miners, many miners will stop signaling BU. This itself should ensure BU and BNO never get activated.

To be clear: BNO activation is not in anyone's best interest, and would only get activated as the final and last line of defense, when BTU forks off BTC with 85% hash power and initiates a 51% attack on the economic chain of $15 billion.


Proof-of-Coinbase
POC is a Proof-of-Stake like system, but it is immune to the issues with POS, like “nothing at stake”  and “stake grinding” or “long-range attacks” .

Virtual Perpetual Mining Rig
The idea, described by others before, is to use POW from previous blocks to build a virtual mining rig.
  • Miners who solved POW would secure the private-keys that controls the outputs from the coinbase transaction in each block
  • The set of all public-keys from coinbase outputs is used as the “Stake” in POS
  • Even when the coinbase coins are transferred, the “Stake” keys do not change

POS is a controversial and highly debated topic, but with some specific properties it can be as secure as POW (and alot faster).

Again, to reiterate, the point here is not to debate if and how it will work, but to point out what will happen if it does in fact work. Which should stop it from being signaled in the first place.

Theorem 1:
Distributed Decentralized Consensus (DDC) can reached via “proof-of-stake” if the following conditions are met:
1) Stake is static and is immutably tied to a specific public-key
2) Block signer selection algorithm is independent of the contents of any block data.
3) The set of public-keys in the selection algorithm was created from a Distributed Decentralized Consensus (DDC) protocol.  
 
*see proof


Using a static set of public-keys from historical POW as the “Stake”, and not using contents of the block to determine block-signer, removes “long-range” or “stake-grinding” attack vectors, and enables “byzantine consensus” via proof-of-stake.


POC Algorithm
  • Coinbase in Proof-of-Coinbase is defined as the  set of public-keys from coinbase outputs of non BU signaled blocks since block n
  • Coinbase set is static and immutable, and is used in lace of Stake in POS consensus algorithm
  • NXT POS (forging) algorithm is used to determine the next block signer from the Coinbase set.   
    Note: no TX or Block data is used in determining right to sign next block. See: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38730

POC is a pure POS system where public-keys from coinbase tx from non BU signaled blocks are the stake, which give miners block signing rights.

NXT forging algorithm is used to decide who gets to sign the next block. This algorithm DOES NOT use the contents of the current or previous blocks to determine next signer, so “long-range” attacks are eliminated.  Slasher is used to solve “nothing-at-stake”.

All other theoretical issues, and centralization concerns are debatable. However these risks are acceptable in the context of a poison pill used as a defensive mechanism to a 51% attack 

In practice, most private-keys from old coinbases are probably not secure, so we should have a start point from where to start using coinbase keys as “stake” so miners can start securing those private-keys, even after coins are transferred way.
 
Conclusion
Proof-of-Coinbase turns the mining hardware of non BU signaling miners into  “virtual perpetual mining rigs”, and they will earn block-rewards indefinitely. While miners with all BU signed blocks will not earn a single BTC block reward.
 
This poison pill, makes BU signaling less attractive as BU gets closer to activation, which will bring BU hash power down. 
 
A (Nash)  equilibrium should emerge below the BU activation threshold, and BU should never be signaled. which was the objective of Bitcoin Nuclear Option.
 
 
 
 

Code:
Pseudo Proof - attempted
=======================================================================

*Theorem 1 Proof:  Must show one case of DDC reached via POS algorithm
 
Lemma1: POW is a DDC protocol
Lemma2: POW produces a set of public-keys tied to the coinbase.
condition #3 met

Lemma3: a random sampling from a set of keys in Lemma2 is a DDC protocol.
Corollary: assuming no collusion, a deterministic sampling is a DDC protocol.
Corollary: sampling Lemma2 set, in block order, in an infinite loop is a DDC protocol
         condition #2 met

Lemma5: we define “stake” as the Lemma2 public-keys which is static and immutable
         condition #1 met
 
Theorem proved by defining “Stake” as the public-keys of all coinbase TXs from discrete set of historical POW blocks, and defining the Block Signer Selection protocol as ordered by “block number”  and looping at highest block in set.

========================================================================

 


Protoblock turns knowledge of American football into Fantasybit coin, a margin token used to monetize leveraged skill.

https://twitter.com/jaybny/status/1022596877332762624
1573676606
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573676606

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573676606
Reply with quote  #2

1573676606
Report to moderator
1573676606
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573676606

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573676606
Reply with quote  #2

1573676606
Report to moderator
1573676606
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573676606

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573676606
Reply with quote  #2

1573676606
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1573676606
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573676606

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573676606
Reply with quote  #2

1573676606
Report to moderator
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1214


First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 01:54:02 AM
 #2

Seems like an extreme thing that would have a hard time getting support. I don't know if people would want a built in poison pill style deterrent.

jaybny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 408
Merit: 250


Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 01:57:08 AM
 #3

Seems like an extreme thing that would have a hard time getting support. I don't know if people would want a built in poison pill style deterrent.

it only gets activated as the sword is being thrust into our hearts... last line of defense, after all else fails.. we are fighting a real strong attack and there is not one strategy to stop a 51% attack post fork... and changing the POW to another POW will just cause the remaining SegWit miners to start signaling BU 

Protoblock turns knowledge of American football into Fantasybit coin, a margin token used to monetize leveraged skill.

https://twitter.com/jaybny/status/1022596877332762624
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:05:49 AM
 #4

Hard fork is a hard fork. If BU gets 75% hash power, anything the 25% does is irrelevant because its still a hard fork. 

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:12:47 AM
 #5

Hard fork is a hard fork. If BU gets 75% hash power, anything the 25% does is irrelevant because its still a hard fork. 
but if the thread of the 25% doing something is enough to avoid the hard-fork then there is no hard fork!  Is Russia launches Nuclear Bombs  on the US then it doesn't mater what the response is bec we are all dead... but if the threat of the response is credible then the attack doesn't happen in the first place.  hence the cold-war




Maybe i'm missing something here.  I'm not quite getting it.

My point is that anything the 25% threatens is only going to affect the 25% chain, not the 75% chain... so I'm not understanding how they can create a threat or a deterrent.


jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:27:37 AM
 #6


BTC goes to Proof-of-SegWit... we give all remaining block-rewards on the BTC chain to those miners who signaled SegWit prefork. assuming BTC still has majority economic value... all those BU signaling mining rigs are now unable to be used... knowing this, miners will start signaling SegWit , and BU will never hit 75%

 

So how does BTC "go to proof of segwit" without changing the consensus rules in the first place?  If you could get 51% of the miners to agree, well... then why not simply just use the 51% majority to initiate segwit directly?

jaybny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 408
Merit: 250


Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 02:48:59 AM
 #7


BTC goes to Proof-of-SegWit... we give all remaining block-rewards on the BTC chain to those miners who signaled SegWit prefork. assuming BTC still has majority economic value... all those BU signaling mining rigs are now unable to be used... knowing this, miners will start signaling SegWit , and BU will never hit 75%

 

So how does BTC "go to proof of segwit" without changing the consensus rules in the first place?  If you could get 51% of the miners to agree, well... then why not simply just use the 51% majority to initiate segwit directly?

after the fork, the BU signaling mining wont count, so yes we have miners agree on a fork. problem is that BTU will then do a 51% attack on BTC, segwit or no segwit.

i can see your not understanding this... thats ok -

if this gets put into code, then it gets activated at the same time as BU does...

all you have to know is that if BU forks then all miners who have been signaling BU will never earn another BTC block-reward, because their mining rigs and hash-power is no longer relevant.

Protoblock turns knowledge of American football into Fantasybit coin, a margin token used to monetize leveraged skill.

https://twitter.com/jaybny/status/1022596877332762624
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 02:56:58 AM
 #8

ok if I don't understand maybe someone else can explain it.

I think you don't understand maybe... nothing changes unless
51% agree on it, and if a hard fork happens the two chains become
divergent, so threats aren't possible.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 07:35:21 AM
 #9

This is complete gobbledegook.

In fact, it is a circular reasoning.  The reasoning goes as follows: GIVEN THAT the core chain will be the most valuable, BU miners will avoid forking to leave the most valuable chain behind, and hence the core chain will be the only one remaining.  Duh.

If the BU miners were thinking that the core chain was to be the more valuable after the hard fork, they wouldn't pull the hard fork in the first place.  The assumption, when you pull a hard fork, is that USERS will value your chain more than the competition.  And then you fucking don't care what happens on the rewards of the competition's chain.

BTW, BU miners, IF they fork, will OF COURSE not care that they won't get any reward on the core chain, as they don't even mine it any more. 

This "nuclear arm" looks like a plastic gun to me.

No, the REAL REASONS why the BU guys won't fork, is:
1) they don't want to. BU only serves to keep Segwit away.
2) the bitcoin brand name. 

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 07:37:00 AM
 #10

no - after a fork, there are now two coins both with sha256 POW, each one will have a price and one of them will be worth more... and if BTC end up with more activity and a higher price, then miners are better of mining BTC instead of BTU...

That's in any case the truth, bomb or no bomb.  BU will only fork if they are pretty sure the BU chain will be the most valuable in the market, otherwise they won't fork of course.  So your nuclear bomb exploding on a low value chain, who gives a shit ?
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1086


We're all gonna make it


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 09:19:46 AM
 #11

... and > 85% of economic value is backing core...

Economic value defined as what? Any source for that claim?

▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████▄███████████
██████▀████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▄████▄██████████████▄█████
█████████████████▄██▀███
▀██▄▄███████████████████
████▀██████▄██▄████████████
██▄▄████████████▀██▄██
▀█▀██▀████████████▀████▀

P O K E R
▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
▄██████████▄▄▄██████████▄
▄█████████████████████████▄
████████▄▄▄▀█▀▄▄▄████████
▐███████████████████████████▌
████████▀▀▀▐█▌▀▀▀████████
▀██████████▄███▄██████████▀
▀███████████████████████▀
▀█████████████████████▀
▀█████████████████▀
▀▀▀███████▀▀▀





██████
███▀▀▀
███
███




███
███
███▄▄▄
██████
Bad Beat Jackpot
Multiple Clients
New Software
NLH Tournaments
Krill Rakeback
Run It Twice

██████
▀▀▀███
   ███
   ███




   ███
   ███
▄▄▄███
██████

.♣ Play Now! ♣.
Xester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 543



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:31:34 AM
 #12

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13j-TcKdZ5dM5QYQDHFEyM5F65Bat-EaA4AM-_vCWaG8/edit?usp=sharing

Bitcoins Nuclear Option - A Defensive Weapon for Armageddon Avoidance  
Proof-of-Segwit (POSW) -  Poison Pill

Quote
BTC refers to the post-fork bitcoin-core / SegWit fork of bitcoin
BTU refers to the post-fork bitcoins unlimited fork of bitcoin

Bitcoin Nuclear Option (BNO) is an armageddon avoidance system. It is a built-in nuclear weapon that will act as the last line of defense in a post contentious hard fork in the face of a BTU 51% attack against BTC when attacker has up to 95% hash-power. It’s a poison pill, that when made public, should act as a deterrent and avoid the fork in the first place.

Summary
BNO is a bitcoin fork that gets activated with the signaling to BU. So once the fork happens we have BTU and BTC-POSW.  The moment BTU forks away, any BTC forks by core would essentially be non-contentious.

Objective: To stop bitcoin from forking.
Mechanism: A poison pill that activates with BTU fork.
What:  A change from POW to POSW
Result: Existence alone should compel miners to signal SeqWit.
How: POSW give all the power to SeqWit signaling miners, making it more attractive to signal SeqWit over BU  

If successful, BNO will never be activated, similar to the success of Nuclear Weapons as a defensive deterrent.


Playbook
BNO is an offensive weapon meant to prevent an attack the same way nuclear weapons are used as defensive deterrent mechanism. BNO takes the playbook for the Chinese Central Bank.
 
Chinese Central Bank “manipulates” it currency by setting caps and floors. However the yuan trades in many free open markets, so how does it actually defend against the cap?

Instead of fighting the market head-on, it uses a strategy where the market itself never tries to test them. It makes it known to the public, that it went short trillions of dollars of call options at the cap price.  Market assumes that China will defend it position, so trying to buy above that price is all risk no reward.

They avoid a costly battle against the open market by pre-emptively putting a “poison pill” at their cap price, that they would have no choice but to defend with everything they have.

BNO is a poison pill, where its existence alone should avoid it ever getting signaled!

BNO Strategy
In the context of a bitcoin armageddon. ie; a post fork and imminent 51% percent attack of BTC from BTU miners.
Implementing BNO in core and describing its effects, should deter BU activation.
  • Threat itself disincentives miners from signaling BU
  • POSW rewards miners that have signaled SegWit in the past
  • Best case - results in a cold-war, the status quo
  • Worst case - BU and BNO gets activated, and BTC is now POSW and immune for BTU hash-power attack

Activation
-- BNO get activated on BU activation
-- The next block is no longer POW, but POSW.

So all miners that have been signaling BU can no longer mine blocks in BTC. Only miners that have signalled SegWit can continue “mining” BTC.

Assuming majority of bitcoin economic activity remains on the BTC fork, BU miners just lost 100% of their investment in their hardware and are unable to ever mine a BTC block again. On the other hand, SeqWit miners will all share in the remaining block-rewards and TX fees for the foreseeable future, (and they can still use their hardware to mine BTU!)  

Effects
Before describing POSW and debating it merits, what is important to understand is just the idea of giving all future rewards to small group of miners, will cause many miners to start signaling SegWit. This would then ensure this never gets activated.  Also remember that this plan is not in anyone's best interest, and would only get activated as the final and last line of defense

Proof-of-SegWit
POSW is a Proof-of-Stake like system, but it is immune to the issues with POS, like “nothing at stake”  and “stake grinding” or “long-range attacks” .

Virtual Perpetual Mining Rig
The idea, described by others before, is to use POW from previous blocks to build a virtual mining rig.
  • Miners who solved POW would secure the private-keys that control the coinbase outputs
  • The set of all Public-Keys from coinbase outputs is used as the “Stake”  in POS
  • Even when the coinbase coins are spent, the “Stake” keys do not change
POS is a controversial and highly debated topic, but with some specific properties it can be as secure as POW (and alot faster).

Again, to reiterate, the point here is not to debate if and how it will work, but to point out what will happen if it does in fact work. Which should stop it from being signaled in the first place.


Theorem 1:
Distributed Decentralized Consensus (DDC) can reached via “proof-of-stake” if the following conditions are met:
1) Stake is static and is immutably tied to a specific public-key
2) Block signer selection algorithm is independent of the contents of any block data.
3) The set of public-keys in the selection algorithm was created from a Distributed Decentralized Consensus (DDC) protocol.  
 
*see proof


Using a static set of public-keys from historical POW as the “Stake”, and not using contents of the block to determine block-signer, removes “long-range” or “stake-grinding” attack vectors, and enables “byzantine consensus” via proof-of-stake.


POSW Algorithm
  • Set of Public-keys from coinbase of SeqWit signaled blocks are the “Stake”
  • NXT forging algorithm is used to select block signer. Data from block not used.  See: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38730

On activation, BTC becomes a pure POS system. Where only public-keys from coinbase tx from SegWit signaled blocks are able to sign bocks.

NXT forging algorithm is used to decide who gets to sign the next block. This algorithm DOES NOT use the contents of the current or previous blocks to determine next signer, so “long-range” attacks are eliminated.  Slasher is used to solve “nothing-at-stake”.

All other theoretical issues, and centralization concerns are debateable. However these risks are acceptable in the context of a poison pill used as a defensive mechanism to a 51% attack  

In practice, most private-keys from old coinbases are probably not secure, so we should have a start point from where to start using coinbase keys as “stake” so miners can start securing those private-keys, even after coins are transferred way.
 
Conclusion
Proof-of-SegWit turns the mining hardware of SeqWit miners into a “virtual perpetual mining rig”, where they can sign blocks and earn block-rewards indefinitely. At the same time it “bricks”  the mining hardware of BU miners.
 
This poison pill, makes SeqWit signaling more attractive as BU gets closer to activation, which will bring BU hash power down and SegWit hash power up.  
 
A (Nash)  equilibrium should emerge below the BU activation threshold, and BU should never be signalled. which was the objective of Bitcoin Nuclear Option.

 
 
 
 

Code:
Pseudo Proof - attempted
=======================================================================

*Theorem 1 Proof:  Must show one case of DDC reached via POS algorithm
 
Lemma1: POW is a DDC protocol
Lemma2: POW produces a set of public-keys tied to the coinbase.
condition #3 met

Lemma3: a random sampling from a set of keys in Lemma2 is a DDC protocol.
Corollary: assuming no collusion, a deterministic sampling is a DDC protocol.
Corollary: sampling Lemma2 set, in block order, in an infinite loop is a DDC protocol
         condition #2 met

Lemma5: we define “stake” as the Lemma2 public-keys which is static and immutable
         condition #1 met
 
Theorem proved by defining “Stake” as the public-keys of all coinbase TXs from discrete set of historical POW blocks, and defining the Block Signer Selection protocol as ordered by “block number”  and looping at highest block in set.

========================================================================

 



I was amazed by how the author presents the occurrence in the bitcoin mining network. He presents it in a way that as if there was a war between two colliding superpowers just like America throwing its nuclear weapons at RUssia and vice versa. But anyway though how long the post is what is clear to me that in the end bitcoin will be won by Segwit and the core developers.
finder_keeper
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 09:46:09 AM
 #13

If BU has, say, 80%, then here's what they can do to defeat this:

1. Keep 59% on the BU chain.

2. Use 21% to mine on the segwit chain, ensuring a majority on both chains.

3. Kill the segwit chain with fire.

12HYShbhrFH1eyrmXc3zMRSFFnkgaVstcg
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 05:36:52 PM
 #14

ok if I don't understand maybe someone else can explain it.

I think you don't understand maybe... nothing changes unless
51% agree on it, and if a hard fork happens the two chains become
divergent, so threats aren't possible.

51%? where you getting that number from? SegWit - is already in the code, but only activates with 95% signaling, BU is already in the BU code but only activates with 85% miners signaling... so we put this in the core code, but only gets activated on 85% miners signaling BU

no - after a fork, there are now two coins both with sha256 POW, each one will have a price and one of them will be worth more... and if BTC end up with more activity and a higher price, then miners are better of mining BTC instead of BTU... to stop this Roger Ver and the BU criminals have promised to attacked the BTC core coin with a 51% attack.. to insure that BTU becomes the only real Bitcoin...

by changing from POW to POS , this attack is not possible!!

and is BTC becomes worth more used more... the BU miners will no longer have the option of switching over and they are shit out if luck!

you really dont understand this stuff... so just stop.

51 is the minimum obviously.   Circular reasoning again though w changing to POS.  It wont just change to POS unless theres big consensus which is the problem youre trying to solve to begin with.  Why you cannot see that,  I dont know.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 19, 2017, 05:40:08 PM
 #15

51 is the minimum obviously.   Circular reasoning again though w changing to POS.  It wont just change to POS unless theres big consensus which is the problem youre trying to solve to begin with.  Why you cannot see that,  I dont know.

Indeed, totally circular reasoning.  "if those majority dickheads fork off, and they don't have a majority, it will blow in their face".

It would in fact be fun to make a PoS fork of bitcoin.  It would most probably be listed as a very, very small altcoin on coinmarketcap.  But hey, why not try it !

sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2017, 09:39:02 PM
 #16



* Calls thread  Armageddon Avoidance

** goes on to describe  Armageddon.

Go Bitcoin.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
testerx
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 19, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
 #17

Reading this garbage gives me a headache, I'm not sure the OP has any idea how Bitcoin or hard forks even work based on the ridiculousness of their suggestion.

If it hard forks it hard forks, at this point I think it might be the best thing for all involved-we'll get rid of the uncertainty and then the two chains can fight it out to see which one is the one that is truly supported.  And all current bitcoin holders will get to have bitcoin on both chains as long as replay protection is implemented.  Then over time it'll sort itself out much like how Ethereum's hard fork was sorted out.  Frankly all the fighting and attacks have lead us to a point where we might as well just fork and see which implementation really has the support of people.

The only real downside is that the whole "21 million" bitcoin limit is going to go out the window if people see that we can end up creating multiple chains.
BTCLuke
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 505


My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 02:21:58 AM
 #18

Does the OP understand that for rules to be in effect, the majority has to adopt them FIRST?

You can't just make up a rule like "If you're a miner that does X, your get no bitcoins" and expect it to just automatically be valid... Miners have to vote to include it first!

If this wasn't the case, Segwit would be in effect already.

Luke Parker
Bank Abolitionist
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 01:10:34 PM
 #19

Reading this garbage gives me a headache, I'm not sure the OP has any idea how Bitcoin or hard forks even work based on the ridiculousness of their suggestion.

If it hard forks it hard forks, at this point I think it might be the best thing for all involved-we'll get rid of the uncertainty and then the two chains can fight it out to see which one is the one that is truly supported.  And all current bitcoin holders will get to have bitcoin on both chains as long as replay protection is implemented.  Then over time it'll sort itself out much like how Ethereum's hard fork was sorted out.  Frankly all the fighting and attacks have lead us to a point where we might as well just fork and see which implementation really has the support of people.

Indeed, that would be the simplest thing to do, except for a few reasons:

1) those capable of forking (miners) don't really want to fork.  BU is bluff to keep segwit away.

2) the nasty clunky old-fashioned 2000 block difficulty adaptation in bitcoin.  Unless the fork changes that too, you cannot afford to have a serious fall in hash rate.  If you are the minority, with, say, 20% of miners on your side, each block will take 50 minutes instead of 10 minutes (5 times less hash rate for same difficulty that gave 10 minutes before), and you will have to do this for 2 - 3 months before difficulty is adapted: by that time, your chain is dead, customers voting for it or not in the market: you have no room on the chain, and the whole point was to have bigger blocks !  If you have only 10% of the miners, you will have a block every 2 hours, and it will take half a year to change that.

3) the bitcoin brand name is all bitcoin still has.  "being an alt coin" is a horrible idea for bitcoiners.

Quote
The only real downside is that the whole "21 million" bitcoin limit is going to go out the window if people see that we can end up creating multiple chains.

That was already the case when the first altcoin was made.  It is a stupid idea that sold very well though.  If one would have kept the block chain rewards constant, with constant additive, and diminishing relative inflation, all of this fee war wouldn't have happened.
gembitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 356


*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 02:45:34 PM
 #20

OP suggestion is ludicrous ~ unless we are being invaded by mongols :-D

#makebitcointalkgreatagain-_-*my posts are strictly for entertainment purposes only. It should not be regarded as investment/trading advice.*advocate to promote sharing and free software for the bitcoin community* #EFF #FSF ===> START WITH NOTHING AND BUILD IT INTO SOMETHING!
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!