Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[Technologov]

Dash of course !
Dash is Bitcoin done Right ! Dash follows Satoshi's vision !!

[1714055110]

1714055110

[1714055110]

1714055110

[iamnotback]

I took a quick look at the other thread.  Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you think the orphaning risk vs propogation time should be linear.
Peter's graph on page 4 of https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf shows an asymptotic curve.  This is getting into some pretty heavy
math stuff, but if you think Peter is wrong on that specific calculation, maybe you can say why.

No my argument is not based on that. I am not going to reexplain it again. I wrote enough about the math at the other thread. Other very smart people have concurred that @Peter R's paper is flawed. I PM'ed @Peter R and he did not come defend his paper. And I've seen him posting today. So by default, he has conceded.

[jonald_fyookball]

I took a quick look at the other thread.  Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you think the orphaning risk vs propogation time should be linear.
Peter's graph on page 4 of https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf shows an asymptotic curve.  This is getting into some pretty heavy
math stuff, but if you think Peter is wrong on that specific calculation, maybe you can say why.

No my argument is not based on that. I am not going to reexplain it again. I wrote enough about the math at the other thread again. Other very smart people have concurred that @Peter R's paper is flawed. I PM'ed @Peter R and he did not come defend his paper. And I've seen him posting today. So by default, he has conceded.

Lets say for the sake of argument you are right.  Why should we prioritize a fee market now when substantial block rewards will be around for several decades?

[iamnotback]

Lets say for the sake of argument you are right.  Why should we prioritize a fee market now when substantial block rewards will be around for several decades?

I think it distills down to the fact that Bitcoin is already centralized. We have two centralized controllers vying for who will control the changes to the protocol:

...
But if BU will be implemented nicely and seamlessly, community will follow and fork split will be avoided, is it really that bad?

...

Do you trust BU's code when 3 serious bugs have occurred already?

Accepting BU is accepting Bitcoin = Visa, because we can't veto their (current and future) protocol changes with our wallets (because changing PoW hash is insecure) except by buying an altcoin. But that is already the case apparently if the mining cartel controls the supermajority of the hashrate.

When the miners stood for protocol immutability, then we had a leverage against Core. But now the miners are competing with Core to change the protocol taking control away from us, except we can still vote by selling Bitcoin and buying altcoins.

With 80% centralization of mining (if that is the case?), then the miners are in control. We can only vote by buying or selling Bitcoin.

With big blocks, the miners will reach 80+% centralization/cartelization. May already be the case.

However it may also be 80+% centralized even with 1MB blocks. I had debunked the economics of mining as space heaters (i.e. as means of competing with mining farms with subsidized electricity in China). Do you need me to dig up the link to that?

[mining1]

No sane person will risk their BTC fortune when this war will escalate. Because there's a risk to lose everything. You won't be able to sell then because it may be too late. Both chains will have longer block times + the pump and dump war between them which will slow them down even more, especially core's 1mb blocks.

[iamnotback]

No sane person will risk their BTC fortune when this war will escalate. Because there's a risk to lose everything. You won't be able to sell then because it may be too late. Both chains will have longer block times + the pump and dump war between them which will slow them down even more, especially core's 1mb blocks.

You are speaking from experience with the ETH vs ETC fiasco? So presumable ETH community has become more careful and prepared since they've already been through that process.

Then again perhaps our concerns are FUD?

Everyone should note that @mining1 is a known supporter of ETH. And also note I diversified some of my BTC into ETH recently because of this BU attack. I am not trying to convince you all to buy ETH. Obviously do what you think is best and I am not sure which altcoin is best to diversify into. Originally I was going to just hang on to my BTC. But then I thought more about how ugly the process could get. Maybe I am overreacting and somehow the two cartel camps will find some way to compromise and kick the can down the road for a future fight, but I doubt it.

[Kprawn]

OP, nobody is coming into Bitcoin without some sinister agenda. {Fucgetaboutit} The investors wants to make money and they want the power.

It comes down to who will be the worst between two evils. I would rather have a functional coin, than some buggy coins that were put together

quickly to disrupt the community. {possibly too biased, but that is how I feel} I think Dash will not work in a global scenario where governments

have full control. You cannot win the fight by entering the ring with your hands tied behind your back, these guys are simply too big.  

[Tigggger]

There is an option that could have made your poll list and you said as much in your linked post.

5. No Change.

Whilst initially leaning towards BU as the lesser of two evils, I'd much rather stay as we are, than have either atm, alts to me have only ever been a way to increase my BTC holdings but since almost all my hardware has now gone I don't do those either.

[iamnotback]

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

There is no decentralization, same 20 computers solve all blocks for years and will continue like this forever.
Personally, I think SegWit is fine. One more party added to form consensus can improve decentralization in some weird way, banksters are fine.

But the miners don't agree to allow SegWit and LN or anything that will reduce the fees they can collect.

Centralization by mining means they decide (if they have 80+% of the hashrate, not the node count). We can only veto that level of centralization by cratering the price and transaction volume, so reduce their profits.

But for them the alternative of losing all future revenue to LN hubs is apparently worth a fight of attrition now. And we token hodlers are stuck in the crossfire.

[BillyBobZorton]

So there is no good option? Everything your presented is a bad option. We just have to chose lesser evil.
With SegWit dead on arrival, greedy miners afraid that it will strip them from transaction fees, our only real option is BU.
But if BU will be implemented nicely and seamlessly, community will follow and fork split will be avoided, is it really that bad?

Core could hardfork also. And they will need to in order to adjust the difficulty level if BU hardforks 75% of the hashrate (40 minute block confirmations with only 1MB blocks would be intolerable).

I think ultimately we the token holders decide, but it is also possible BU could retaliate with difficulty thrashing attacks or perhaps even a 51% attack allowing no transactions at all on BTC (assuming BU has ~80+% of the hashrate). So then Core would need to retaliate by changing the PoW hash, which would cause the security to be vulnerable to botnets.

Godzilla vs. King Kong could create a swath of destruction while they are slugging it out.

Even Bitcoin is a gamble now. These opposing cartels are turning Bitcoin into an altcoin gamble. Do you trust BU's code when 3 serious bugs have occurred already?

Accepting BU is accepting Bitcoin = Visa, because we can't veto their (current and future) protocol changes with our wallets (because changing PoW hash is insecure) except by buying an altcoin. But that is already the case apparently if the mining cartel controls the supermajority of the hashrate.

When the miners stood for protocol immutability, then we had a leverage against Core. But now the miners are competing with Core to change the protocol taking control away from us, except we can still vote by selling Bitcoin and buying altcoins.

We have to keep our bitcoins in our wallets to receive the free BTU so we can actually defend in the case of a HF. Dump the BTU for BTC and double the BTC. PoW change and difficulty change to prevent chinese attacks. Big whales on BTC side will quickly get the hashrate up.

That is if there is a HF at all. I dont see miners HF'ing when 80%+ of community runs Core nodes:



This is how it looked like yesterday before Roger Ver updated his nodes with the closed source patch, now:

https://coin.dance/nodes

Andreas agrees on low probability of HF:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/844462933543456769

If miners go against 80% of nodes they will declare themselves as enemies of bitcoin and they will get replaced by good miners.

[Paashaas]

In this current condition and after making my consessions, i'm picking the bankster cartel. Core delivers what Bitcoin needs, nobody cares about those banksters except the BU people

I understand there opinion but it's not relevant for BU supporters because Jihan and Ver are doing a very bad marketing/scaling/PR campain which makes there entire BU project F.U.B.A.R. The damage has been done, BU is finished the only thing they got left is hashing power. Perhaps somebody else will learn from there huge mistakes and propose another alternative for scaling but that requires a lot of resources which woud be hard to achiev, Core is already miles ahead.

If BU had a better business model they recieved much more support.

[jonald_fyookball]

Lets say for the sake of argument you are right.  Why should we prioritize a fee market now when substantial block rewards will be around for several decades?

I think it distills down to the fact that Bitcoin is already centralized. 

Somewhat, and perhaps that is inevitable.  Satoshi said full nodes would get specialized. 

Looking forward to seeing your solution to all this 

[BillyBobZorton]

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

There is no decentralization, same 20 computers solve all blocks for years and will continue like this forever.
Personally, I think SegWit is fine. One more party added to form consensus can improve decentralization in some weird way, banksters are fine.

But the miners don't agree to allow SegWit and LN or anything that will reduce the fees they can collect.

Centralization by mining means they decide (if they have 80+%). We can only veto that level of centralization by cratering the price and transaction volume, so reduce their profits.

But for them the alternative of losing all future revenue to LN hubs is apparently worth a fight of attrition now. And we token hodlers are stuck in the crossfire.

Another reason I don't get BU supporters besides the software being a disaster is... if miners can pretty much control blocksize, and blocksize increases are a way to lose money for miners since the fees go down (and miners are stupid and think long term)... why people asume miners will raise the blocksize under BU and not just keep blocking the blocksize to keep milking fees as high as possible just like they are doing by blocking segwit? They clearly don't care about the long term benefits of segwit + LN for them which would make them more money as bitcoin can be used massively if those are enabled and they would make more money when trillions of LN transacted packages go into the blockchain, but they don't care and only want short term profit even if it implies that the whole network effect gets damaged potentially causing massive losses:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/

They don't care, it's all the miners fault.

Lets say for the sake of argument you are right.  Why should we prioritize a fee market now when substantial block rewards will be around for several decades?

I think it distills down to the fact that Bitcoin is already centralized.  

Somewhat, and perhaps that is inevitable.  Satoshi said full nodes would get specialized.  

Looking forward to seeing your solution to all this  

You can't call a network with specialized (aka centralized) nodes "p2p cash", at least Core team puts a priority on that never happening by maintaining a conservative blocksize.

[mining1]

@iamnotback yes and no, because BU-core war is different. Everyone knew ETH is official even before ETC was born. The "problem" was this: barry and chandler dumped ETH and pumped ETC, and obviously miners followed the price. Even though most mined ETC just to convert into ETH because everyone knew it is the official one, it fueled the illusion created by  barry sillbert and chandler gao that a flippening was happening and that Ethereum foundation was going to switch aswell to ETC. But the illusion broke when vitalik officially stated that the vote was already cast out, the result both before and after the fork was clear ( like 95%+ of the hashrate followed the fork updating their client ). So, the result of the manipulation wouldn't have mattered because the EF was going to develop on ETH no matter what.

Because of that the illusion fell flat on chandler's fat face because ETC was and is nothing without the brains of ethereum foundation. So, not only they tried to scam and fool people  in the first place with flippening attempt of hash/price but also lied about the switch of EF aswell. Then, to make matters worse, they betrayed the investors that bought into it and are now trying to make it a currency/payment system only and it is known that the ice age is removed and etc will have a token cap of 200-230mil tokens. Those poor investors who got scammed thought they bought into a cheaper ETH with a cap of ~100mil and a platform that aimed to be a dapp/contract platform. Now it became 500th wannabe btc clone.

Taking what i said above into consideration, let's talk about BU-core war, because there are huge differences between eth-etc and BU-core. Even though core has more supporters, in no way they are in the same situation ethereum foundation was. They aren't the creators of BTC, they're just the ones that took control of BTC's development and assumed it's leadership. But when you give life to something, you're more inclined to make it work and survive rather than get the benefits for yourself. In this case, both core and BU will follow their personal interest and it's obvious they aren't as motivated as Ethereum foundation was. And also BU is not in the situation of ETC because they actually have devs.

Because of that, the kind of manipulation pulled by barry&chandler will work so much better in a bu-core war because the second group is somewhat official aswell, have their own supporters, devs, and can continue the work.
I would bet that vitalik by himself would be able to end this war by choosing to support one camp. Because arguably he's the most respected individual in public blockchain scene.

[Lauda]

@iamnotback yes and no, because BU-core war is different. Everyone knew ETH is official even before ETC was born. The "problem" was this: barry and chandler dumped ETH and pumped ETC, and obviously miners followed the price. Even though most mined ETC just to convert into ETH because everyone knew it is the official one

The current ETC is the real and original ETH. The current coin named ETH* is an altcoin which took the name from the original coin. This works in coins that are severely centralized, development, mining and governance wise ('one high king').
@OP:
This is a ridiculous poll due to several reasons. For example, "Bankster cartel" is exaggerated, and there are no valid altcoin alternatives either.

[iamnotback]

@OP:
This is a ridiculous poll due to several reasons. For example, "Bankster cartel" is exaggerated, and there are no valid altcoin alternatives either.

Can you prove it is not a "bankster cartel"? 

There are altcoins which are not as likely to get attacked over the next weeks. The poll is there to determine what people are thinking about doing. I am curious what they choose after they know all the facts. I wish they would wait and read more of the discussion before voting. Informed votes are more meaningful.

We have to keep our bitcoins in our wallets to receive the free BTU so we can actually defend in the case of a HF. Dump the BTU for BTC and double the BTC.

Can you tell me whether BTC currently has the necessary replay protection so that my transaction selling BTU won't be relayed to the BTC chain and also sell my BTC? The ETH vs. ETC fiasco suffered from replayed transactions on both chains.

PoW change and difficulty change to prevent chinese attacks. Big whales on BTC side will quickly get the hashrate up.

BitFury has threatened legal attacks against Core if they change the PoW algorithm. You say there are whales who will step up to provide mining security, but fact is that botnets (even Amazon EC instances botnets) are for sale. Are these whales going to avail of these botnets so they can get the most hashrate per $$? And so then we become beholden to a new small block mining cartel. Then the common man will never again be able to do an onchain transaction. They'll long said that onchain should only be for clearing transactions between the big whales and not for us. We get only centralized LN hubs which afaics means KYC, confiscation of funds by the authorities, etc..

That is if there is a HF at all. I dont see miners HF'ing when 80%+ of community runs Core nodes:

...

Andreas agrees on low probability of HF:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/844462933543456769

If miners go against 80% of nodes they will declare themselves as enemies of bitcoin and they will get replaced by good miners.

How can we replace hashrate with nodes  

[mining1]

Lauda, most people don't agree with what you said, considering how things evolved. You're a victim of barry and chandler and you should seek help.

[jonald_fyookball]

Another reason I don't get BU supporters besides the software being a disaster is... if miners can pretty much control blocksize, and blocksize increases are a way to lose money for miners since the fees go down (and miners are stupid and think long term)... why people asume miners will raise the blocksize under BU and not just keep blocking the blocksize to keep milking fees as high as possible just like they are doing by blocking segwit?

It's called a fee market (I don't mean to sound pejorative).   Miners will try to maximize revenue but they also need to compete with each other and with other payment methods.   Their total revenue won't necessarily be higher with small blocks because there will be less transactions in the blocks even though they might be getting more per transaction.  If there is a huge demand for large volumes, they will get much more with bigger blocks.  On the other side of the spectrum, they have to stay competitive with (be cheaper than)  PayPal, and other cryptocurrencies.

You can't call a network with specialized (aka centralized) nodes "p2p cash", at least Core team puts a priority on that never happening by maintaining a conservative blocksize.

Well its kind of like the OP is alluding to, pick your poison.   I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.  You can disagree and that's fine.  Cheers.

[miscreanity]

How can we replace hashrate with nodes  

Exactly. Miners can far more easily spin up well-connected nodes to protect their position than nodes owners could build up hash power. Lost cause before it started.

[Technologov]

about Dash premine:
yes it existed. I admit. But everyone takes money home.

Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin pocketed 1 million BTC.
Vitlik Buterin of Ethereum pocketed 600,000 Ethers.
Evan Duffield of Dash pocketed about 1 million Dash.
===

Same for the big corporations:
Bill Gates of Microsoft pocketed a ton of MS shares
Zuckerberg of Facebook pocketed a ton of Facebook shares
..and so on.

For me a crypto-coin is both a digital gold coin and a share in the network

Basically I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is a partial pre-mine, rather than 100% centralized pre-mine (like Ripple XRP).

Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !