Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2022, 04:03:22 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Miner cartel, bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
miner cartel (aka Bitcoin Unlimited fork) - 22 (16.9%)
bankster cartel (aka Bitcoin Core fork) - 50 (38.5%)
an altcoin (not Dash cartel) - 54 (41.5%)
Evan Inc cartel (aka Dash aka RogerCoin) - 4 (3.1%)
Total Voters: 130

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?  (Read 33138 times)
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 04:00:41 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 10:36:24 PM by iamnotback
 #121

I understand now why MPeX (with the support of the banksters) want very small blocks. That is because they want to control the blockchain, and so as long as they can keep our transactions off the blockchain by making it too expensive for us, then we won't be able to interfere when they need to change the PoW hash to spank some slave mining cartel that is disobeying their masters (because we won't control any significant amount of on chain tokens).

MPeX is going to destroy the Chinese mining cartel. Watch.

The plan is to put all of us off chain on LN with centralized hubs controlled by the banksters.

MPeX hates democracy and stupid average people. He doesn't want us making the decisions on choosing the protocol of the blockchain.

Now it is all very clear to me. This is why he wasn't afraid to tell the SEC to go fuck themselves. This dude is connected in high places. He probably wasn't joking when he claimed he ended Hillary Clinton's presidency bid.

After sleeping and while laying in bed upon awakening, I realized something (which if I am correct is) very important.

Readers you need to pay attention because this is the most important post you are going to read about the entire blocksize debate. This will make it all crystal clear.

When I wrote the above quoted, I didn't realize the precise reason the Bitcoin whales must defend small blocks. It apparently has nothing to do with a desire to force the non-whales to off chain transactions. Rather I have deduced that the requirement could be driven by a very specific technical reason.

So the Bitcoin whales want to retain the power to remove any mining cartel that forms, because this is absolutely necessary to prevent a cartel from doing evil things such as increasing the money supply limit beyond 21 million tokens, blocking transactions from certain individuals, and other forms of non-meritorious monkey business.

The Bitcoin whales simply want a meritorious money system that can't be used to sustain the fiat debt nonsense which has turned our world into a fucking mess. This is why Mircea (alias his business MPeX) is against what he abbreviates as "USG.MIT", which means all the fuckers running the bankrupt fiat system and their brainwashing academic institutions. So actually we are on the same side as the Bitcoin whales philosophically:

Re: how has your attitude to bitcoin changed the longer you've been into it?

A revolutionary new payment system --> an entry level theft school for small time crooks --> a running joke for my friends and family.

Remember humans are incapable of detecting exponential growth until it is too late, e.g. the lily pond is only 12.5% covered with lilies on the 28th day, 50% on the 29th, and 100% on the 30th.

Crypto and blockchains are a fundamental shift of economics and society underway. Deflationary crypto-currency will correspond with a change from debt-based, industrial age to investment-based, knowledge age.

Don't be thrown off by that which you can't perceive objectively.

The Bitcoin whales retain this power because they control sufficient liquid and real cash flow generating assets such that they could cause a selloff of the tokens on the mining cartel's fork, thus their fork would win because investors move to the fork which has more demand. The mining cartel has only illiquid sunk costs assets (the mining infrastructure) and self-referential (i.e. not real) cash flow.

Thus the Bitcoin whales only need to change the PoW hash function to render the mining cartel's ASICs useless. There is absolutely no way for the BU mining cartel to win the war of attrition. It is just economics. Think it out. MPeX and his cohorts own more than 80% of the liquid Bitcoins.

mircea_popescu: fluffypony all future coin, of any type, and more generally all future human industry of all types is indelibly linked to bitcoin
mircea_popescu: this is a fact and it's not going away except in fiction.

But there is one crucial detail. In order the kill off the mining cartel's fork, it must be possible to split the tokens so they are separately spendable on the two forks. But if the mining cartel is determined that their fork will always honor the data format of the transactions of the Bitcoin whale's fork, then the only way to accomplish splitting is to spend the tokens first on the fork with the large blocks but send them with such a small transaction fee that they do not make it into any small block. Then after those are confirmed on the large block fork, respend the same tokens on the small block fork with a sufficient transaction fee. The Bitcoin whales will make sure the small blocks are always full so that this strategy is available.

So that was an essential insight. The reason Bitcoin whales need small blocks, is that is the only technical way they would be able to split tokens to kill off an attack by a determined mining cartel!

So it is not that the Bitcoin whales subjectively desire our non-whale transactions to be off chain. They objectively have no choice, because of the technical design of Satoshi's PoW.

I've been wondering why the Bitcoin whales didn't tell us this frankly, so that we would be on their side. I think the reason is it would have hindered the adoption of Bitcoin, because it would make it clear there are overlords who are safeguarding Bitcoin. It sort of kills the delusion of an autonomous decentralization. However, the small text below posits a solution.

I posit I have a solution to this technical problem which will meet the aims of the Bitcoin whales and also keep all transactions on the blockchain. My solution gets rid of PoW. I have not yet publicly published this solution.


Btw, to profit on the upcoming scenario such that you can sell the fake Bitcoin asap before its price collapses, you might think that you will need to have your BTC in a wallet (not on an exchange) and then you will need to spend your Bitcoin for an altcoin or fiat making sure your transaction fee is small enough that it only goes into a large block. Then later you will need to join together with other Bitcoin holders to issue a joint transaction with a high enough transaction fee to make it into a 1MB block. Because the demand will be so high that the transaction fees on 1MB blocks will likely be higher than you can pay alone. So since this is likely to drive demand for altcoins then it might just be easier to buy an altcoin now, except you won't have a copy of the real Bitcoin token and will need to trade to get back into it later. But the problem with this strategy is how do you find and execute a trade of your fake Bitcoin with someone willing to give your fiat or an altcoin?

The situation of the exchanges is more complex. The exchanges must split the tokens before they can allow them to trade as split tokens (because exchanges can't take exchange rate risk of splitting them internally if they aren't already split on chain of the blockchain forks). So initially what the exchanges will be offering for trade is the joint token which hasn't been split yet. But that joint token won't allow you to arbitrage the difference in value of the fake and real forks of the token. So therefor, to trade your altcoin (or fiat) back to the real Bitcoin, you will not be able to do this on an exchange when the relative price of the real Bitcoin (relative to the fake Bitcoin) is low, because you will only be able to trade for the joint value of the fake and real Bitcoin. To maximize your gains from this coming split (i.e. trade for the real Bitcoin when its price is low), you would need to trade off exchange somehow. Or mine it! The Bitcoin whales will be selling their fake Bitcoin for fiat for spending on mining the real Bitcoin, if they can find anyone to execute a trade with. There really won't be much incentive for the exchanges to split the tokens because the fake Bitcoin will rapidly approach worthlessness.

Thus the fake Bitcoins that the mining cartel mines will be worthless. Nobody will be willing to trade for them because everybody is going to be trying to dump them. Well perhaps some fools who didn't read my post explaining why large blocks are evil, will be willing to buy the BTU tokens and perish along with the other retards. Maybe Roger Ver will bankrupt himself in the process if isn't reading my posts. So it won't be too long before the mining cartel goes bankrupt since their revenue dies. And they won't be able to come back to the real Bitcoin because the PoW hash will have changed. The BU and Chinaman retards are going to be totally destroyed. There is absolutely no way the BU mining cartel can win this fight. Fugetaboutit.





If you go on a Bitcoin fork, irrespective which scammer proposes it, you will lose your Bitcoins.

Tuesday, 06 January, Year 7 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Some random scammeri, pretending great import and high office in Bitcoin like all the scammers coming before himii (all of which the hostile eye of the mainstream media, as well as the dim, unseeing eye of the mass "follower" presented as actually important, for a brief time, back in the day - and generally for pay) is going to create a "Bitcoin killer".

Unlike the MtGox coins, Aurora coins, Etherium coins, Ripple coins, Paycoins and whatever other scammy "better than Bitcoin", "Bitcoin replacement" etc peddled to dateiii, the current scammer is brasher in his attempt (as scammers are wont to be, they call this "being innovative" on their dedicated scammer forums), and he actually claims to be seriously involved in Bitcoin development, at the behest of a fake "Bitcoin Foundation". These claims are both false, on the strength of the historical record, and both are squarely rejected by the actual Bitcoin Foundation.

What's left is the nude reality of the matter : if you, either misguided by some scammer's malice, or simply through ignorance, actually modify your Bitcoin client to accept the nonconformant transactions, the result will be that any Bitcoin you hold will be slowly (or perhaps not so slowly, depending on your use habits) replaced by worthless scam-Bitcoins, that will not be accepted by the main players in Bitcoin anymore than they'd accept something you've drawn yourself.

The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe.iv The proceeds of this "victimless"v crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders. Which of these two do you wish to be... well... now that you consider the matter, it's pretty obvious, right ? Certainly, not all will consider the matter, but if your morals are in their right place you will at least let them know, if you can get to them.

To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all.
1642910602
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642910602

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1642910602
Reply with quote  #2

1642910602
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1035


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2017, 04:02:30 PM
 #122

After getting some sleep, I was able to figure all of this out. There was a key insight about preventing reply attacks missing from my analysis yesterday, because I tried to work beyond the point of consciousness while in a sleep deprived delirium. Now I see the light. I will elaborate next post.

@rpietila, I've just read your post now and it wasn't part of my epiphany. I ask you to please point me to a summary of your plans and analysis. I don't have time to go digging around. With no disrespect intended, as I remember you bought $100,000 of Bitcoin at $10 and you pumped Monero up to a huge bubble then it sold off. What else have you accomplished of significance that should motivate me want to expend time digging around through all your writings trying to figure out the significance of CK? Don't you have it summarized some where? I'm interested of course, but my time is such a scarce resource. Apologies for the conspiratorial wanderings of my prior post. I think it was due to the delirium and I should have slept first, but I was so curious and didn't want to take a break to sleep. My mistake.

This post and the one that follows it in the thread should give insight into the current move from the game being on the XMR standard and moving to the CK standard: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=819073.msg18325686#msg18325686

mining1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 04:44:40 PM
 #123

Makes sense, but that implies the whales will join together and try to pump bitcoin back up, because it'll probably flippen with ethereum by then. What if random joe's faith in bitcoin is lost by then ? They might not have enough buy power to cause another flippening and get bitcoin back to #1.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 05:25:59 PM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 01:38:44 AM by iamnotback
 #124

Makes sense, but that implies the whales will join together and try to pump bitcoin back up, because it'll probably flippen with ethereum by then. What if random joe's faith in bitcoin is lost by then ? They might not have enough buy power to cause another flippening and get bitcoin back to #1.

Do we have the danger of Bitcoiners giving up and trading into fiat instead of into an altcoin? Thus the entire marketcap of crypto declines as it has been since March 16 (with a deadcat bounce ended March 22).

Many Bitcoiners are trading into ETH (and a few other majors but ETH especially the past 2 days) but the price hasn't yet surged past $51 (although it is up from $44 price when I hedged out of BTC) because there has been an overall draining of crypto back into fiat.

If there was no exodus from BTC into alts and fiat, then the best strategy would be to hang on to BTC (and not even bother to try to sell the worthless fake BTU component of it).

However, since others are moving out of BTC because of the uncertainty (and in general perhaps less new users and fiat coming into our ecosystem due to the bad news), then perhaps we are forced to hedge also by either selling out to fiat or an altcoin.

As for what will happen after the dust settles, I don't know how the confidence can return immediately to the real BTC, because it won't have enough transaction scaling until LN is finished given that the 1MB block fork will win (per the logic in my prior post). Thus either many give up on crypto or they diversify into alts in order to not have their transactions delayed. However since speculators issue their transactions on exchanges, maybe they don't really care if Bitcoin as a payment system is not working well on chain with 1MB blocks? I doubt it. They care, because it impacts public perception of Bitcoin.

Thus I conclude ETH to $200 (as the chart seems to indicate is a possibility) may be happening. But that is only a speculation. No guarantees. As I said, perhaps everyone will give up and exit to fiat, but I doubt it. Ideologically we joined this journey because we hate fiat (although we still need fiat when we can't pay for something directly with Bitcoin). And to make a profit.

Note I edited my post to clarify what our possible strategies are as follows. Readers please peer review my logic.

Btw, to profit on the upcoming scenario such that you can sell the fake Bitcoin asap before its price collapses, you might think that you will need to have your BTC in a wallet (not on an exchange) and then you will need to spend your Bitcoin for an altcoin or fiat making sure your transaction fee is small enough that it only goes into a large block. Then later you will need to join together with other Bitcoin holders to issue a joint transaction with a high enough transaction fee to make it into a 1MB block. Because the demand will be so high that the transaction fees on 1MB blocks will likely be higher than you can pay alone. So since this is likely to drive demand for altcoins then it might just be easier to buy an altcoin now, except you won't have a copy of the real Bitcoin token and will need to trade to get back into it later. But the problem with this strategy is how do you find and execute a trade of your fake Bitcoin with someone willing to give your fiat or an altcoin?

The situation of the exchanges is more complex. The exchanges must split the tokens before they can allow them to trade as split tokens (because exchanges can't take exchange rate risk of splitting them internally if they aren't already split on chain of the blockchain forks). So initially what the exchanges will be offering for trade is the joint token which hasn't been split yet. But that joint token won't allow you to arbitrage the difference in value of the fake and real forks of the token. So therefor, to trade your altcoin (or fiat) back to the real Bitcoin, you will not be able to do this on an exchange when the relative price of the real Bitcoin (relative to the fake Bitcoin) is low, because you will only be able to trade for the joint value of the fake and real Bitcoin. To maximize your gains from this coming split (i.e. trade for the real Bitcoin when its price is low), you would need to trade off exchange somehow. Or mine it! The Bitcoin whales will be selling their fake Bitcoin for fiat for spending on mining the real Bitcoin, if they can find anyone to execute a trade with. There really won't be much incentive for the exchanges to split the tokens because the fake Bitcoin will rapidly approach worthlessness.

Thus the fake Bitcoins that the mining cartel mines will be worthless. Nobody will be willing to trade for them because everybody is going to be trying to dump them. Well perhaps some fools who didn't read my post explaining why large blocks are evil, will be willing to buy the BTU tokens and perish along with the other retards. Maybe Roger Ver will bankrupt himself in the process if isn't reading my posts. So it won't be too long before the mining cartel goes bankrupt since their revenue dies. And they won't be able to come back to the real Bitcoin because the PoW hash will have changed. The BU and Chinaman retards are going to be totally destroyed. There is absolutely no way the BU mining cartel can win this fight. Fugetaboutit.

I wonder how many deluded fools won't read my posts?

Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

You are going to end up with $0 if you acquire fake BTU tokens instead of real Bitcoins.

It isn't my opinion. Rather it is the economics and technological facts. You can choose to pursue reality or delusion. but only reality is what you will get.

Hey I know this guy:

Bitcoin is basically destroyed now with 70% of the mining controlled by China, soon to be 98+%, and with Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse so as Matonis admits can end up increasing the 21 million coins limit.

The entire ecosystem is headed for a clusterfuck.

I honestly believe this is the truth.  What is there to add ?

~CfA~

Hey I think I'm related to the guy you quoted.

What you probably don't know already is that a good chunk of the recent hashpower coming online is actually a taxpayer funded adventure. A good chunk of the recent hashpower is split roughly evenly between the Chinese and the US government. There might be a third player in there but I can't discern. I can't tell which of the two is actually ahead, it seems to oscillate on a three week period. But in either case, the race is on : the governments are mining, boys and girls.
horace08122
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 390
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 06:06:10 PM
 #125

Makes sense, but that implies the whales will join together and try to pump bitcoin back up, because it'll probably flippen with ethereum by then. What if random joe's faith in bitcoin is lost by then ? They might not have enough buy power to cause another flippening and get bitcoin back to #1.
What will be the point of holding bitcoin in one hand. Then the value itself may be lost. I probably will not take offense much if big whales start pumping the crypto currency in some way, although I doubt it very much, we will use something new or well forgotten old.
rdnkjdi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1009


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 06:24:27 PM
 #126

Good to see you back Anonymint.  You should get them to give you your old user back .

Bitcoin Ulimited has fallen to 38.5% of the previous blocks mined.  This is possible variance.  I understand that 75%+ of the mining power is in China but that doesn't necessarily mean all the mining lords agree.  Are we really confident there is going to be a fork?  

For the record - I've put my money where my mouth is and taken on a massive leveraged short several days ago.  "This is just FUD.  Buy and Hold.  Nothing to see here." when there are full blocks, and a goddamned civil war going on with 40% of the hash power threatening bigger blocks.  I think people are naive.  But I do have a few questions.

Why core won't agree to 2MB blocks + SEGWIT rather than the forkening alternative.  How is this not a likely outcome?

On a longer term scale - how can a PoW system provide sustainable security without all fees going to the miners when there is a future 0 inflation rate?

If 75% of fees are going to cheaper offchain transactions (which I think is likely - I haven't done the math but I assume a far larger amount of money is spent in lower transactions than higher transactions that would be onchain).  It's literally an upside down pyramid with the market cap being the top.  And the percentage of the market cap spent on securing the network on the bottom.

The larger it grows, the smaller the security to market cap ratio it gets.  I don't see anyone talking about this but I've been concerned about it for a few years.  How is this not ultimate doom for any crypto that takes it's fees offchain?


This is the third attempt for bigger blocks.  I am to the point of assuming if this one fails the miner cartels will literally hire their own miners and simply take over the bitcoin network.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4390


Be a bank


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 06:30:49 PM
 #127

If you didn't misread and misrepresent MP's works, you might realise there are plenty more options than these.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 06:35:18 PM
 #128

You make this overly complicated.  Replay attacks are impossible from the moment you mix with newly mined coins on the split chain.  No need to make it so complicated.

Look, after the first "whales" block is mined, the coinbase of that block is split in dust (you'll have to wait for many blocks before you are able to spend the coinbase, but that's not a problem), and each of these dust UTXO can be used in mixers to split for good any coin, making a replay attack of that spending impossible on the other fork, because exactly that coinbase transaction simply didn't exist on the other fork, the "miner fork" (other miner, other address, other signature !).  The signatures of both transactions are hence totally different.  The transaction will be different and hence the signature will be different, and will not be valid on the other fork --> no replay possible.

No need to have to fully block the small blocks in order not to spend your coin in a replay attack.  Simply mix with dust from a new coinbase transaction.  Exchanges should quickly get themselves some of that dust ; big whales will find a way to get some of that dust too.  And eventually, mixers can be set up for the lesser life forms, mixing in some dust.

--> you need more sleep Smiley

I understand now why MPeX (with the support of the banksters) want very small blocks. That is because they want to control the blockchain, and so as long as they can keep our transactions off the blockchain by making it too expensive for us, then we won't be able to interfere when they need to change the PoW hash to spank some slave mining cartel that is disobeying their masters (because we won't control any significant amount of on chain tokens).

MPeX is going to destroy the Chinese mining cartel. Watch.

...

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 06:44:30 PM
 #129

Good to see you back Anonymint.  You should get them to give you your old user back   Kiss

He virtually died of TB. Under reconstruction. We're rebuilding him better. So iamnotback yet is true.

Bitcoin Ulimited has fallen to 38.5% of the previous blocks mined.  This is possible variance.  I understand that 75%+ of the mining power is in China but that doesn't necessarily mean all the mining lords agree.  But are we really confident there is going to be a fork?

I was analyzing what the outcome would be if the mining cartel has the capability to mount a 51% attack. Do they?

The one thing I can't get over is why core won't agree to 2MB blocks + SEGWIT rather than the forkening alternative.  How is this not a likely outcome?

Do did you disagree with my analysis as to why the whales who own Bitcoin won't allow an increase to the block size?

My assumption is that Core is trying to use this standoff to make sure other things they want are enabled before satiating the near-term crisis requiring a block size increase. In other words, they don't want to waste the crisis and delay their work. They know we need LN for scaling. And they want to be able to enable adding more features to Bitcoin in order to compete with altcoins.

Side question:  On a longer term scale - how can a PoW system provide sustainable security without all fees going to the miners when there is a future 0 inflation rate?

If 75% of fees are going to cheaper offchain transactions (which I think is likely - I haven't done the math but I assume a far larger amount of money is spent in lower transactions than higher transactions that would be onchain).  It's literally an upside down pyramid with the market cap being the top.  And the percentage of the market cap spent on securing the network on the bottom.

The larger it grows, the smaller the security to market cap ratio it gets.  I don't see anyone talking about this but I've been concerned about it for a few years.  How is this not ultimate doom for SEGWIT?

Fees will be higher on chain than off chain. The off chain entities will have to compete to get their settlements on chain, so a portion of their off chain fees end up paid as fees on chain.

This is the third attempt for bigger blocks.  I am to the point of assuming if this one fails the miner cartels will literally hire their own miners and simply take over the bitcoin network.

Only the whales who have real assets (i.e. 80% of the Bitcoins) and generate ongoing cash flow external to mining have the economic might to own Bitcoin. What do the mining cartels have other than sunk costs and debt?
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 07:12:41 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 08:44:16 PM by iamnotback
 #130

Simply mix with dust from a new coinbase transaction.

You propose to spend the compound transaction on the whales' fork first, then after that has confirmed then respend the same inputs on the non-whales' fork without mixing in the coinbase inputs. The non-whales' fork can't replay the former because of the coinbase inputs mixed in the transaction. Or vice versa ordering if the coinbase from the non-whales' fork are in the compound transaction.

Your idea would not to scale well if employing the coinbase from the whales' fork, because how does the miner transfer those dust to others, because if dust were allowed in unconstrained blocks normally then Bitcoin mining would be spammed. So even with larger (but constrained) blocks it seems dust transactions will be done at huge losses on the whales' fork (when done is large volume).

And winning a block (to obtain coinbase dust) on the non-whales' fork will be impossible by definition because the mining cartel possesses a 51% attack.

So looks like your proposal would be risky and thus my logic on why whales need to defend small blocks remains valid.

Perhaps you are the one who needs more sleep (although it is true I need more recovery).  Tongue (or maybe you just need to restrain the hubris)

Edit: and your proposal doesn't work when inflation ends. The whales apparently want a hard limit at 21 million tokens. Although it seems a minuscule, diminishing (not even a percentage, i.e. not exponential growth) tail reward could accomplish what you want or even some other mechanism of referencing blocks in transactions. I had actually thought of this referencing blocks (before my prior post) but rejected it because it doesn't scale well.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 07:18:00 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 07:37:15 PM by iamnotback
 #131

If you didn't misread and misrepresent MP's works, you might realise there are plenty more options than these.

Thanks for the slander. How about enumerating instead of some nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that requires me to wade through endless 1000s of pages of self-aggrandizing redundant prose.

I would very much like to understand. But I shouldn't subjected to his cultural indoctrination just to find out. Be more transparent please. Open source is not about private clubs and obfuscation.

I'll be grateful if you point out my errors. That is what open source is about.

I don't have time to read him all day every day. I have work to do. Doesn't he realize that other people have work to do? Would he really want a world where autonomous productive energies where useless because only he has worthwhile truths. Could y'all be a bit less cryptic.

(note I haven't yet started the mental process of trying to exhaustively think of other options. That is on my todo list for later today after I get through replying and dealing with other tasks)
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4390


Be a bank


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 07:44:39 PM
 #132

If you didn't misread and misrepresent MP's works, you might realise there are plenty more options than these.

Thanks for the slander. How about enumerating instead of some nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that requires me to wade through endless 1000s of pages of self-aggrandizing redundant prose.

I would very much like to understand. But I shouldn't subjected to his cultural indoctrination just to find out. Be more transparent please. Open source is not about private clubs and obfuscation.

I'll be grateful if you point out my errors. That is what open source is about.

I don't have time to read him all day every day. I have work to do. Doesn't he realize that other people have work to do? Would he really want a world where autonomous productive energies where useless because only he has worthwhile truths. Could y'all be a bit less cryptic.

No, it's true. No, I'm not going to do your work for you. The logs are public, and Mr.P is publicly available.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 08:40:05 PM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 12:25:06 AM by iamnotback
 #133

No, it's true. No, I'm not going to do your work for you. The logs are public, and Mr.P is publicly available.

Work? Did someone offer me a job? I thought we were sharing information on this site as groupwise effort.

I haven't tried asking him directly.

But there is no way I am going to read "22`352`146 words" of what is mostly pissing in the wind all day about same concepts over and over again (did you really read all that like a good slave sycophant?):

Difficulty : Beginner

I. You could read the logs. A ball of yarn approximately 22`352`146 words to date (roughly twice the size of Trilema, which of course you've read, yes ?), the logsii recount the entire history of the Republic, and in the process provide the only, winding, intricate stairwell into its very heart : the forum. That the republic readily exceeds the literate production of the combine of "modern democracies" should be unsurprising ; that they sorry shelters of the stunted ever manage to reach its quality is altogether dubious. See #trilema for life support.

I understand that perhaps telling me to go read the blogs is supposed to be some filter so only those slaves who are capable of participating in his (what he claims is our) reality are going to have (or even should or could have) pragmatic "access" to the buried information. I read in his own words that he made his MPeX site spartan (even cryptic) so that those who weren't motivated enough would stay away.

Anyway, Trilema is widely read, but obviously demographics play a large role. For one thing there's a huge market for confirmative bias, on all topics (which is how sites like social media this or that even survive - yet putting stock in that is like believing the common fork is a sort of Heidegger because hey, people hold forks in their hands a lot more than they hold Being&Time). For another thing it's really not everyone's job to understand in arbitrary detail everything that's going on, nor is such even feasible. The bar for even comprehending what's being said here is far above what qualifies one for postdoctoral studies, and so you can't say Trilema is [n]either intended or comfortable for a large majority of people.

MP is obviously very smart, thus I certainly should be afraid of missing out on such important wisdom as ...



I'm vaguely unpersuaded by the theory. The woman was well in her 30s. Her body carried the evident marks of intensive, deliberate, significant effort expended with clear sexual goals, and it carried them abundantly. It can not be possible that by that age, in her circumstance, she hasn't eaten plenty of cunt. My girl disagreed, "plenty of girls never had any". Her sample is probably less biased than mine. Still... Really ?!

The form stands ready to take your take on the matter and convey it to me for my edification. Thank you.

PS,


But we all know what this is about:

Pretty disappointed with the first photoshoped submissions.
Was hoping for stuff involving tentacles, young women and religious material.

Why do you exploit the mindlessness of the mindless masses for your own amusement? Are you aspiring to divinity?

I think he probably right guys...  Huh
maybe his the God for Retards

Adversus Solem ne loquitor.

I have nothing against MPEX nor Mircea himself. We have complementary missions

I wouldn't really have even bothered with this article if there wasn't a third paragraph there, because contrary to what the stupid imagine, I don't use them for dissection material in order to hurt and humiliate them.

It's not about them, I couldn't care less about them, they're not human as far as I'm concerned. Just like I'm all in favour of butchering a million or a billion, or however many cute fluffy bunny rabbits, be it for making medicine, or cosmetics, or music out of their cries of agony, or whatever else - I'm equally in favour of torturing, mistreating and abusing the stupid in absolutely any way. That's what they're here for, after all, and if that's what gets you off by all means, who cares.

It doesn't really do anything for me, but nevertheless I will dissect them, with no regard to their own whatever bullshit, if I figure I could use the parts to teach, illuminate and instruct people about stupidity. And so here we go, check out the spots on Miscreanity's liver.

Note last quote above comes from a Trilema blog page wherein (I've been told by the source that) MP incorrectly insinuated that @Anonymous was written by @miscreanity. So this exemplifies that MP makes mistakes, is reckless, duplicitous, and may be borderline lunatic/sociopath who could lose his mind at some point and totally REKT Bitcoin. We do not have decentralization with Satoshi's PoW.




Well I see MP and I have a similar judgement of character in the following case:

MP also has a lot of misses, for example (s)he was apparently telling people that I (0_o) was trying to rob people with my "I taint rich!" thread.  It turns out that when you talk smack about everyone, eventually you get some hits.

No. What he said was that there's no way to tell whether you then use that to try and convince some random clueless noob that indeed you're rich. This is a fact: had he not sunk your stupid little idea you could have so convinced some random clueless noob. Irrespective of whether you had planned to or would have actually tried to, this is still not something you should be trusted with, as in spite of all the pretense you're still an untrustworthy, duplicitous piece of shit.
XbladeX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Last edit: March 25, 2017, 09:40:42 PM by XbladeX
 #134

***
So it is not that the Bitcoin whales subjectively desire our non-whale transactions to be off chain. They objectively have no choice, because of the technical design of Satoshi's PoW.
***

You can think about it like about big conspiracy but real life can get you on ground.
Yes we stand today at wall we choose scalability solution even there is demand for those transactions it will be capped at current design.
BTC @price like 600$ was that when people were able to buy BTC and transact and build/run applications on BTC (like counter party)
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees
https://blockchain.info/pl/charts/n-transactions
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts

So for me BTC was at balance 10.2016 price BTC 600$ and average fee 0.15$ 220 000tx/day
BTC was out of balance 03.2017 @1200 and fee 1$ 300 000tx/day cap reached.
So balance that allow you to rise is like:
1MB - 600$/BTC - 220 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 0,1 MB internet connection + 37 GB/year
If you want rise in BTC price you need:
10MB - 6 000$/BTC- 2 200 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 1MB internet connection + 370 GB/year
100MB - 60 000$/BTC- 22 000 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 10MB internet connection+ 3 700 GB/year
1000MB - 600 000$/BTC- 220 000 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 100MB internet connection+ 37 000 GB/year
Visa have 2000tx/s so   172 800 000tx/day

Those are HARD data you cannot go over them. To me goal that want BTC-U achive is FUKING JOKE this is not do able in decentralized system, those miners aim to be "Visa" even if it will be possible BTC won't no longer decentralized who will be able to handle that chain ?
BTU system is utopia but users doesn't have resources to adapt. BTC-U won't be p2p but user2datacenter.
Data-centers can be shutdown can be regulated can be DDOSed. Governments can go to those datacenters and force them to move into any fork they want.

Segwit will push fee price into heaven over time, but to make BTC cheaper you will have to use decentralized 2nd layer solutions.
2nd layer solution is just pure need and can not be bypass for me.
There is scenario when we have that would be coin with no blockchain.
But this is not BTC patch.


***
Btw, to profit on the upcoming scenario such that you can sell the fake Bitcoin asap before its price collapses, you might think that you will need to have your BTC in a wallet (not on an exchange) and then you will need to spend your Bitcoin for an altcoin or fiat making sure your transaction fee is small enough that it only goes into a large block. Then later you will need to join together with other Bitcoin holders to issue a joint transaction with a high enough transaction fee to make it into a 1MB block.
****


Depend bro who is really behind that fork miners ? or China government ? If miners have China government support they can buy all those cheap BTC-U and pump it then sell that product as China digital currency. China government is not that stupid they will allow it to rise and they will point guns at central miners to make some changes in few years when people won't be able move away from BTC-U.

If behind BTC-C is US government (fraction reserve is their old school trik ) while behind BTC-U will stand China government it will be interesting battle. You can not say in 100% accuracy that BTC-U will be worth shit - China central bank can buy your dump.
If Chinise were planning such attack then we will see that in price.
Wind_FURY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1286


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 03:46:15 AM
 #135

Who is Mircea Popescu??

First time, I've seen this document where he promises to do what I just deduced upthread that he would do:


The code he is referring to is here:

http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html

So MPeX and his WoT are the masters of Bitcon. Bitcon is not a decentralized currency.

This presents a slight problem for any altcoin that attempts to challenge Bitcon. MPeX and his rich friends will attempt to attack it in order to protect their monopoly over cryptocurrency.

The more wealthy he and his bankster WoT become, the more enslaved we become. I don't like this arrangement.

[Edit: being very sleepy I didn't really think out the above statement well. I am retracting it because if any altcoin can be attacked then it isn't decentralized and thus isn't an improvement on the power vacuum that is Bitcoin.]

Note back in 2013, MPeX sent me (@AnonyMint) a PM. It was something about his enemy @rpietila who he refers to as "tortilla". Since then Risto has had his laptop hacked, been put in a mental ward and subjected to forced medications, etc.. I don't know what to think of all that.

Can you update me on Mircea Popescu's involvement. I already mentioned in the other threads if there was a guy capable of annihilating Bitcoin Unlimited it was him. Is there definite proof of his involvement? Sorry but I am lazy of reading the whole thread. If you would be so nice to give me the link of the post where Mircea's name was first mentioned then I'll read it all up. Thanks.

████  ███████  ███
██████████
███      ███████
███      ███████████
██████████████████
████████
███   ████  ███████████
███ ███████████████
█████████
█████████████████
███  ███████
██████████████
███        ████████
███████████▀▀███▀▀███████████
██████▀▀     ███     ▀▀██████
████▀   ▄▄█████████▄▄   ▀████
████▄▄▄███▀  ▀█▀  ▀███▄▄▄████
██▀▀▀██▀      ▀      ▀██▀▀▀██
█▀  ▄██               ██▄  ▀█
█   ████▄▄         ▄▄████   █
█▄  ▀██▀             ▀██▀  ▄█
██▄▄▄██▄             ▄██▄▄▄██
████▀▀▀███▄ ▄█ █▄ ▄███▀▀▀████
████▄   ▀▀███▄█████▀▀   ▄████
███████▄     ███     ▄███████
███████████▄▄███▄▄███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
..PLAY NOW..
███  ███████  ████
██████████
███████      ███
███████████      ███
██████████████████
████████
███████████  ████   ███
███████████████ ███
█████████
█████████████████
███████  ███
██████████████
████████        ███
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:16:26 AM
 #136

Who is Mircea Popescu??

First time, I've seen this document where he promises to do what I just deduced upthread that he would do:


The code he is referring to is here:

http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html

So MPeX and his WoT are the masters of Bitcon. Bitcon is not a decentralized currency.

This presents a slight problem for any altcoin that attempts to challenge Bitcon. MPeX and his rich friends will attempt to attack it in order to protect their monopoly over cryptocurrency.

The more wealthy he and his bankster WoT become, the more enslaved we become. I don't like this arrangement.

[Edit: being very sleepy I didn't really think out the above statement well. I am retracting it because if any altcoin can be attacked then it isn't decentralized and thus isn't an improvement on the power vacuum that is Bitcoin.]

Can you update me on Mircea Popescu's involvement. I already mentioned in the other threads if there was a guy capable of annihilating Bitcoin Unlimited it was him. Is there definite proof of his involvement? Sorry but I am lazy of reading the whole thread. If you would be so nice to give me the link of the post where Mircea's name was first mentioned then I'll read it all up. Thanks.

I think it is important to understand that MP had owned 750,000 BTC as of ~2013 and it was increasing at the rate of ~$100k daily (presumably that $100k was when the BTC price was much lower so perhaps $1 million daily by now). And he also wrote that he sold 250,000 BTC in Q3 2016, so he is cashed up and ready. Also is well connected with the whales who own 80% of the Bitcoins.

Apparently you're unaware who exactly you're talking to, which is chuckle worthy. Here's a thought : at the last count I was worth something north of 3/4 million Butts. Now what ?

Some excerpts of upthread posts:

...

Apparently Mircea Popescu (who claims he is a $billionaire in BTC and earns more than $100K daily primarily as a result of his MPeX high finance Bitcoin venture) believes it is an experiment that will sort itself out, i.e. if Satoshi's proof-of-concept wasn't good enough, then the sovereign republic will fix it:

...

Mircea Popescu's group maintains The Real Bitcoin Foundation fork of Satohi's code before Core started mucking with it. I presume he thinks the whales can always change the PoW hash if they need to spank a cartel of miners who are censoring transactions and/or extracting exorbitant ransom fees, but the flaw in this thinking is precisely the error he noted in his mathematical analysis which is that the experts can't be omniscient. How will they know what level of security is sufficient and centralized control is not anti-fragile.


If you go on a Bitcoin fork, irrespective which scammer proposes it, you will lose your Bitcoins.

Tuesday, 06 January, Year 7 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Some random scammeri, pretending great import and high office in Bitcoin like all the scammers coming before himii (all of which the hostile eye of the mainstream media, as well as the dim, unseeing eye of the mass "follower" presented as actually important, for a brief time, back in the day - and generally for pay) is going to create a "Bitcoin killer".

Unlike the MtGox coins, Aurora coins, Etherium coins, Ripple coins, Paycoins and whatever other scammy "better than Bitcoin", "Bitcoin replacement" etc peddled to dateiii, the current scammer is brasher in his attempt (as scammers are wont to be, they call this "being innovative" on their dedicated scammer forums), and he actually claims to be seriously involved in Bitcoin development, at the behest of a fake "Bitcoin Foundation". These claims are both false, on the strength of the historical record, and both are squarely rejected by the actual Bitcoin Foundation.

What's left is the nude reality of the matter : if you, either misguided by some scammer's malice, or simply through ignorance, actually modify your Bitcoin client to accept the nonconformant transactions, the result will be that any Bitcoin you hold will be slowly (or perhaps not so slowly, depending on your use habits) replaced by worthless scam-Bitcoins, that will not be accepted by the main players in Bitcoin anymore than they'd accept something you've drawn yourself.

The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe.iv The proceeds of this "victimless"v crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders. Which of these two do you wish to be... well... now that you consider the matter, it's pretty obvious, right ? Certainly, not all will consider the matter, but if your morals are in their right place you will at least let them know, if you can get to them.

To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:06:52 AM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 05:24:35 AM by iamnotback
 #137

What altcoin. All the big money will stay on the small block fork with the new PoW hash, because BU is technologically incompetent and the Bitcoin whales are in MPeX's WoT. MPeX probably controls a million BTC himself. Plus his bankster friends.

But there won't be a BU fork.  BU is not what the miners want.  They only have BU to stop segwit, that's all.  Miners want to keep the current protocol.  I don't see what is going to stop people to keep the current protocol.  The only thing they have to do is NOT upgrade.  Even with the segwit code inside, it will never get activated.  The miners will continue making their block chain.

For the mining cartel, it isn't about small or large blocks. That is a red-herring issue. It is about the mining cartel proving that they are in control, so they can attain more capital because they have demonstrated that they can debase the 21 million coin limit and steal the wealth of the Bitcoin whales such as MP (the guy discussed in the prior posts).

It is also likely that China (the government or military) is viewing Bitcoin as financial weapon they need control over.

Apparently the cartel has the willingness and resolve.

So whoever is going to yell "new PoW algorithm" is going to have to convince people to upgrade, while the miners are continuing to make bitcoin work as it is working now.

Contrary to a fork with same hash function, where the market cap determines the miner's preferences, if you cripple miners on one chain, you force them to keep on the other one.

So the market cap is not a way to kill a chain in the case of different PoW functions: the miners keep with the chain they can still mine.

As such, a split is unavoidable, and if the PoW fork comes, original bitcoin (without BU or whatever) will continue to exist.  I don't see how you can kill that chain, when wallets are functioning, miners are mining, just by creating a fork with a different mining function.

Moreover, people will have both coins after the fork.  Why should they sell their "true old bitcoins" to acquire the new PoW coins only ?  The smartest move is to sit this out with the normal bitcoin, and profit from the "free money" on the new chain.

ETC bis.

You are not thinking clearly. One the one hand is the mining cartel 51% attacks the minority chain, then who ever mines the minority chain will never earn anything. OTOH, with a PoW hash change, the whales who own 80% of the Bitcoin will sell the mining cartel's fork and buy their own fork. So the rest of the investors will follow the rising price and copy them. Thus the mining cartel's fork will die. And those miners can't do anything with their infrastructure and they are completely bankrupted and destroyed.


I also am wondering why the Chinaman mining cartel is so brave to challenge MP. 200 million yuan ($29 million) is peanuts for MP. Perhaps the Chinese government has committed to provide as much funds as is necessary. I would love to see MP defeated and bankrupted. Would be a good lesson for him about relative size of economies (China is a not an overleveraged, vacuous fiat house of cards yet like the West).



Would you please stop obsessing over me?  It's creepy.

I am not your mommy.

You do not get to determine how I spend my time, you do not get to restrict what I say or believe.  I don't force anyone to do anything. You will you make me cow down and obey you through threatening me by lying to the public to try to raise a mob of idiots against me, and even if you do manage to get me killed you will not stop bitcoin, you will not convert it to the centralized coin you seem to so desperately want.

So give it a break.

THE MAJORITY is with you 21 million %.

Why don't the BU supporters understand that Core has been told by the majority of the wealth (i.e. the whales) that if they fuck with the block size using a HF, then MP will change the PoW hash (or some other method I haven't yet determined), and destroy their HF and bankrupt/punish miners who mine on it.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1026



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 06:38:55 AM
 #138

Shelby; If you would need to assess the relative seniority of me and Mircea Popescu, which criteria would you use?

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 07:11:32 AM
 #139

Simply mix with dust from a new coinbase transaction.

You propose to spend the compound transaction on the whales' fork first, then after that has confirmed then respend the same inputs on the non-whales' fork without mixing in the coinbase inputs. The non-whales' fork can't replay the former because of the coinbase inputs mixed in the transaction. Or vice versa ordering if the coinbase from the non-whales' fork are in the compound transaction.

Your idea would not to scale well if employing the coinbase from the whales' fork, because how does the miner transfer those dust to others, because if dust were allowed in unconstrained blocks normally then Bitcoin mining would be spammed. So even with larger (but constrained) blocks it seems dust transactions will be done at huge losses on the whales' fork (when done is large volume).

It doesn't need to scale a lot.  In fact, this dumping has to be done on an exchange listing both coins, right ?
So this exchange should get some dust, even before being able to allow deposits and withdrawals in real coins from both coins.  Once such an exchange has "dust" (it can "explode" the dust in single Satoshis if it wants to), it can mix in dust in every withdrawal transaction on the whales' chain.  There aren't so many exchanges.  They only have to have some dust.

But the "trading" with IOU can start immediately of course: that's just a matter of virtual games on the exchange's web site.  But withdrawals will be impossible until the exchange has at least some dust from one chain or the other.  If the exchange is wise, it doesn't list the coins before obtaining the dust, because it could put itself in serious difficulties otherwise.

In fact, the exchanges only need one single time "dust": they need to "pay their big wallet to themselves" once with dust in it.  After that, all withdrawals and deposits on that wallet are chain-only.

Quote
Edit: and your proposal doesn't work when inflation ends.

Oh, well, that is still 100 years away Smiley  Bitcoin most probably won't exist any more then.
And in any case, no tail emission is a disaster if you need to reward people.  I think no inflation is OK, but in a voluntary system only.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 07:25:53 AM
 #140

There is in fact nothing exceptional to what is presented here as a kind of big conspiracy:
if a hard fork of a coin is made, then of course all owners of the coins, having double coins, will decide in the market.  If there is a large preference by coin owners for one chain over the other, they will dump their holdings on one, to buy more of the other ; this will reflect in the relative market valuations of both market caps.

Whether this is done by "big whales", or by myriads of small owners doesn't really matter: it is the stake holders that split over the two coins according to their preferences.  Of course, if one of the chains is largely preferred by the majority stake, the other one will be "dumped into oblivion" but there's nothing wrong with that: it is stake preference.

However, I think that all these people are missing the point: miners don't want to hard fork.  The current bitcoin protocol is a dream for them.  They simply don't want it changed.  The only ones pushing for forks are the Core guys with Segwit, and now with change of PoW.

The BU are naive instrumentalized guys (or not so naive), that only need to exist to give counter weight to Core's desires to change bitcoin.  BU is not supposed to fork for real.  It only needs to bring sufficient dissent so that bitcoin can stay itself.

As such, the story becomes more involved: the only people *really wanting to fork away* are the Core side because they aren't pleased that bitcoin doesn't want to evolve according to their wishes ; that they have lost centralized control over bitcoin's protocol and cannot dictate the changes as they wish.   Those stopping them, and acting as the guardians of immutability, are the miners.  So the propaganda now wants to picture the miners as the people wanting change (with BU).  But they would be out of their minds to want change.  Bitcoin is a dream for them.

The ultimate scare tactics is to threaten the miners that if they don't comply to the changes Core wants, they will render their investments useless by changing PoW.   If the market (the whales) is with them, then yes, Core could bring out a fork with a new PoW, and the whales would kill the original bitcoin by dumping it to go to the forked Core version.

However, that will be a much, much more risky operation than at first sight, because you would need very strong collusion to do that: all exchanges would need to list "bitcoin" as the FORK, and need to list the ORIGINAL bitcoin as the alt coin.  Note that it worked with ethereum: the fork went with the name.  There WAS strong collusion between the whales, the Foundation, and the few exchanges listing ethereum to keep the name on the fork, and dump the original ethereum (renamed ETC) to oblivion.  Note that they ALSO had collusion of the miners.

But the power structure in bitcoin is different, and the *main propaganda for bitcoin*, the "longest chain, most protected by PoW" is going to be a very strong argument AGAINST such a PoW scheme, which cannot deliver a similar PoW security as the original bitcoin which will have ALL miners behind it (they have no choice !).

The surviving "old bitcoin" would have a more grassroots aspect than the new "big whales" coin with low PoW.  If ever the whales made a mistake, they would have their own coin amongst themselves to play with, and the "greater fools" would swarm to "cheap, true bitcoin": true bitcoin at $20, -, who wouldn't want to buy some !  With PoW like before, solid as a rock.  With the 1MB blocks largely sufficient to sustain the low traffic.  Bitcoin back in 2012, who wouldn't want to jump the train they missed the first time !

I call bluff.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!