Peter R's talk at Coinbase -- yes they will 51% attack the minority chain!

[jonald_fyookball]

(possibly).

Very interesting article.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/on-the-emerging-consensus-regarding-bitcoins-block-size-limit-insights-from-my-visit-with-2348878a16d8#.hih385eti

I was surprised to see this idea  that if a small minority wants to fight the emerging consensus of bigger blocks, the majority will stop them with their hashpower.

I know people will take this out of context and scream "Bu wants to 51% attack bitcoin" but the idea is eliminate replay risk and a split network, which
would be bad for everyone.  So it makes sense.

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!


 

[Holliday]

(possibly).

Very interesting article.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/on-the-emerging-consensus-regarding-bitcoins-block-size-limit-insights-from-my-visit-with-2348878a16d8#.hih385eti

I was surprised to see this idea  that if a small minority wants to fight the emerging consensus of bigger blocks, the majority will stop them with their hashpower.

I know people will take this out of context and scream "Bu wants to 51% attack bitcoin" but the idea is eliminate replay risk and a split network, which
would be bad for everyone.  So it makes sense.

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!

They have to try and kill it. Their Emergent Chaos design doesn't have any wipeout protection. If another chain becomes the longest, the entire BU chain just vanishes!

[Killerpotleaf]

(possibly).

Very interesting article.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/on-the-emerging-consensus-regarding-bitcoins-block-size-limit-insights-from-my-visit-with-2348878a16d8#.hih385eti

I was surprised to see this idea  that if a small minority wants to fight the emerging consensus of bigger blocks, the majority will stop them with their hashpower.

I know people will take this out of context and scream "Bu wants to 51% attack bitcoin" but the idea is eliminate replay risk and a split network, which
would be bad for everyone.  So it makes sense.

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!


 

I didnt realize synthetic fork was going to be utilized.

[aarturka]

China is very big and powerful country and if it wants to take over bitcoins it would be easy for them to get some asics. So hashpower won't matter. Bitcoin must protect itselves by any means necessary.
Though I dont think that BU seriously threaten Bitcoin now. It's just a bunch of Ver's shills and altcoin guys most of them don't even have bitcoins they go into alts and now they want bitcoin to die, for their altcoins to grow in prise.
Ver says that he sells his bitcoins for the BTU, buy he already sold and bought dash and eth so I doubt he have any amount of bitcoins.
But you may countinue to post what your china daddys tell you.

[Killerpotleaf]

 LMFAO

[jonald_fyookball]

aarturka, that is pretty funny... but i wish you had an avatar so i could also have some fun! 

[iamnotback]

I guess @Peter R is being paid off well. Analogous to how the Japanese paid our best engineers to transfer our technologies some decades ago.

China is very big and powerful country and if it wants to take over bitcoins it would be easy for them to get some asics. So hashpower won't matter. Bitcoin must protect itselves by any means necessary.
Though I dont think that BU seriously threaten Bitcoin now.

Still complacent I see...

Re: Why Bitcoin won’t hardfork like Ethereum

Some people spread rumors around, saying that the mining industry will control Bitcoin if BU wins. This is obviously a fallacy, no one can fight against the market unless he possess more money than the market.

As if the market will have any other choice. That was a nice lie.

Now that Bitcoin is at least 51% mined from China, prepare for future regulations to be enforced on all transactions. The reference to Taiwan a subliminal warning to Westerners of their future ass kicking humiliation.

The BU mining cartel admitted it can and will 51% attack when required to.

I warned you all last year. And you all said I was spreading FUD.

When you guys are serious about decapitating the centralized power of the miners, come talk to me.

[numismatist]

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!

Changing the PoW would render all mining investments worthless. The nuclear option that would nuke Bitcoin.
There are not so many possibilities to render the first mover approach worthless. This is one of them.

[jonald_fyookball]

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!

Changing the PoW would render all mining investments worthless.  

That is what I thought at first, but now I think they can probably change the PoW without changing the basic hashing function.  For example instead of 2 rounds of SHA-256, there's 3 rounds.  Or something like that.  Might only need a small software tweak...but I'm not an expert.
 

[anonymoustroll420]

If they do actually attack the chain then it's very likely the hashing algorithm will get changed to sha-3. The Chinese miners have said they will attempt to sue the devs if that happens (lulz).

Here's how I see it play out:

Chain splits
Miners learn that BTU is worth less than BTC because it has a much smaller economy, and they are earning less money by mining it

They switch back to the original chain

Or:

They try to attack the original chain to force the users to switch to BU and bring up the price
The hashing algorithm gets changed
Miners are fucked and all their ASIC's are worthless bricks

It would be so awesome if the hashing algorithm was changed to Cuckoo or something like that that was GPU/ASIC resistant, so that we could bring Bitcoin back to it's roots and people could mine on their own computers and end mining centralization. I don't think that will happen though as it's been discussed for years and we can't decide on a new algorithm. SHA-3 is mostly agreed upon in case of attack only. Besides Cuckoo is very new and untested.

[jonald_fyookball]

I warned you all last year. And you all said I was spreading FUD.
 

You were spreading FUD. lol. (imo anyway).

You were saying crazy stuff like all bitcoiners are going to end up in jail.  You were also a perma-bear on the price and all around consistent pessimist.   No?

[Kakmakr]

Whomever are behind any attack against Bitcoin, is not FOR Bitcoin. Why would you want to destroy the technology, if you do not win the war? It reminds me of the days when I was a kid. We would play in the park with the other kids and one kid would have brought his ball, but when things did not go his way, he would take his ball or someone would kick the ball onto a roof so that nobody can play. ^hmmmmm^

This is Childish indeed. ^grrrrrr^

[dinofelis]

(possibly).

Very interesting article.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/on-the-emerging-consensus-regarding-bitcoins-block-size-limit-insights-from-my-visit-with-2348878a16d8#.hih385eti

I was surprised to see this idea  that if a small minority wants to fight the emerging consensus of bigger blocks, the majority will stop them with their hashpower.

I know people will take this out of context and scream "Bu wants to 51% attack bitcoin" but the idea is eliminate replay risk and a split network, which
would be bad for everyone.  So it makes sense.

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!


 

So essentially, BU has now become a bilateral split.  They are not backwards compatible any more if they require BU signalling.  Good.  Simplifies things.  Now, if people think that this imposes the absence of a fork, they are deluded. 

The real reason why there will not be a fork, is not technical.  It is the bitcoin brand name.  That's all.
As long as that name is worth something (and for the moment, it is worth the whole of bitcoin's market cap, because as an alt coin, bitcoin is worthless: launch a new "bitcoin" altcoin and nobody is going to buy a single token, not even the dev), nobody will want to be the fork without that name.

[dinofelis]

This is why Core floats the idea of changing their PoW to keep a minority chain alive. (also makes sense)

Ok, let the flaming begin.  Go!

Changing the PoW would render all mining investments worthless. The nuclear option that would nuke Bitcoin.
There are not so many possibilities to render the first mover approach worthless. This is one of them.

It is very simple.  If you want to get rid of the miners, don't implement PoW.  Seems so trivially logical, that I wonder how people miss it.  PoW = miner cartels.  Unavoidable.   Don't want that ?  Don't use PoW.  Switch to PoS.  Bitcoin could, right now.

(apart from the fact that it can't and will remain bitcoin, as long as the name means something).

[anonymoustroll420]

Switch to PoS.

PoS on it's own is very broken and insecure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism

[jubalix]

Switch to PoS.

PoS on it's own is very broken and insecure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism

yeah nah, xem and eth are using is and dash will go pos.....I think

your views?

[AngryDwarf]

Switch to PoS.

PoS on it's own is very broken and insecure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism

yeah nah, xem and eth are using is and dash will go pos.....I think

your views?

Why would Dash need to go POS? Evan's extensive masternode network already has the miners paying them tax.

In return for providing this services, one masternode is selected by the network to receive a part of the reward of each mined block.

[jubalix]

Switch to PoS.

PoS on it's own is very broken and insecure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism

yeah nah, xem and eth are using is and dash will go pos.....I think

your views?

Why would Dash need to go POS? Evan's extensive masternode network already has the miners paying them tax.

In return for providing this services, one masternode is selected by the network to receive a part of the reward of each mined block.

The masternodes are effectively pos though i'm not accross it but I think they are

as for the nothing at stake argument on the wiki link, all that get u is a diferent chain being mined and who cares, it just mean you get effective sort of *merged mining* going on, and you have coins on all the chains

[spartacusrex]

Maybe a good fist fight 51% attack IS the only way for this to be resolved..

Maybe everyone having their say, big or small, and seeing what's left at the end of the ensuing carnage is the only FAIR way of proceeding..

Yes - it's dangerous, yes - could kill bitcoin, yes - we could be kissing a million dollar bitcoin goodbye.

but maybe not.

WE ALL WANT A WORKING BITCOIN.. we just have different opinions about how to get there.. and maybe that's enough for 'something' to 'emerge'.

I hope it is.

(If nothing else we'll learn a lot from the experience, a $20Billion lesson.. better be good)

[franky1]

(If nothing else we'll learn a lot from the experience, a $20Billion lesson.. better be good)

there is no $16B-$20B dollars!

thats the speculative bubble number based on a few thousand coins being stired around in exchanges to have a $1000 'price' and the multiplying it by 16m

there are not 16-20 billion actual dollars sitting in bank accounts.
i can make an altcoin tomorrow with 5,000,000,000,000 premined coins. get just 1 coin onto an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and instantly have a $5trillion market cap.

so stop talking about the speculative bubble number.. its meaningless. all the holders of the 16m coins of bitcoin are not promised or guaranteed $1000 if they all cashed out today. its not a 'valuation' .. its a bubble number of multiplication