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

[spartacusrex]

(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

LOL.. it must be tiring fighting ALL the time Franky.

Anyway, if you don't think that BITCOIN, as a 'thing' is worth 20BILLION in jobs, business's, R+D, speculation etc etc.. let alone the simple total coins*price metric.. we're using different versions of Bitcoin.. oh.. wait a sec..

[1714768346]

1714768346

[1714768346]

1714768346

[1714768346]

1714768346

[1714768346]

1714768346

[1714768346]

1714768346

[1714768346]

1714768346

[dinofelis]

(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

I agree with this one.

It is a measure of how much people think they will find greater fools.

[mayax]

(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

great point and very true. BTC capitalization is just a bubble. nobody owns billions of USD in their bank accounts. get real !

BTC is just a trendy e-currency like e-gold was at its time and it will end once something new will appear.

[franky1]

LOL.. it must be tiring fighting ALL the time Franky.

Anyway, if you don't think that BITCOIN, as a 'thing' is worth 20BILLION in jobs, business's, R+D, speculation etc etc.. let alone the simple total coins*price metric.. we're using different versions of Bitcoin.. oh.. wait a sec..

well when the dozen main core devs are being paid in fiat. and their 100 spell checkers are volunteers. you cant try twisting that into how your  kingdom, thats only a corner of bitcoin is worth billions.. their debt shows its only worth $70m for their corner.

then the exchanges, their financial reports of actual holdings is not that much.

yea alot of VC money may add up. but you have to realise thats all FIAT DEBT
and a secondary market/value/thing that is not linked to the "market cap" calculation in any way

i lov bitcoin and i understand it much better than most. but i am a realist. there is no point exaggerating the numbers, over promising and using twist sales pitches followed by algo changing threats..

bitcoin is much better than fiat in many ways. but there is no need to centralise it into a Core Tier network to kiss fiat VC ass. using scripts, hidden agenda's and half promise empty gestures

bitcoin should remain decentralised and that means let the nodes vote. not the devs.
devs can move onto other projects, get old and retire, companies can change policies, and stop accepting a coin (circle for instance) so we need to think about what the community want.. not the corporate army of devs that are only temporary

[ekoice]

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.

Yes,either the miners would leave BU due to low profitability or they would try to attack original chain to make them switch to BU.I hope probably the second condition would occur and if it happens,it would be the time to change the hashing algorithms and it would be interesting to see the selfish miners suffer.

[franky1]

Yes,either the miners would leave BU due to low profitability or they would try to attack original chain to make them switch to BU.I hope probably the second condition would occur and if it happens,it would be the time to change the hashing algorithms and it would be interesting to see the selfish miners suffer.

sorry to burst your bubble but its core doing all the threats and blackmails, and subverting nodes

[iamnotback]

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.

That is true I was spreading other FUD^[1], but no I wasn't saying all Bitcoiners were going to jail. I wrote about whether altcoin ICOs and such could be subject to SEC investment securities jurisdiction.

You were also a perma-bear on the price and all around consistent pessimist.   No?

That is true I correctly predicted the price decline to $150 (including some of the twist and turns along the way down). But then I thought it would go lower to below $100 before bottoming (my reason was thinking adoption was stalling due to centralization and also I thought both gold & BTC would collapse together at the beginning of the collapse of EU's coming crisis due to the stampede out of Euros causing a strong dollar & USA stocks bubble).

But at $600 I realized the bottom had been reached and became a bull and I actually timed the blast off nearly perfectly.


^[1] In my defense I will say that I only diagnosed the disseminated Tuberculosis illness in January 2017 that had been giving me insane delirium since 2012ish. Franz Kafka died of TB. Read some his kafkaesque writings for indication of the cognitive effects of the illness. Fortunately TB can be treated and I am.

[classicsucks]

(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

franky nailed it. This shit-bird could take a big dump on everything at anytime.

And of this talk about changing the hashing algo and/or changing to proof of stake? Insanity. Are people that stupid?

Rizun is going out on the wing a bit. Something tells me people aren't buying his Koolaid. And his coders might not be up to mixing it just right.

[BillyBobZorton]

Attacking the developers that conform 99.99% of the software you copy-paste all the hard work from, yep makes total sense.

Too bad PoW change will be deployed and their miners will be useless. People will continue supporting Core because people don't want to use buggy software.

So they have to choose:

1) Abandon the BUcoin disaster
2) Keep going and be rendered useless as the PoW change happens

[jonald_fyookball]

snip

I wish you a full recovery from your TB ...as well as your psychological problems  (jk on the last part) 

[Xester]

(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 have opened the link and I did not find the idea that you showed in your post. What I found was that there is an internal block within bitcoin that limits the growth of its blocksize. This internal wall will be the basis as to how the proposed consensus will work and as to what blocksize increase will it implement. And in the end that author would suggest that everyone should accept bigger blocks as well as accept Bitcoin unlimited but with the bug killed in the process.

[jonald_fyookball]

Attacking the developers that conform 99.99% of the software you copy-paste all the hard work from, yep makes total sense.
 

Look man... that's how open source software works... anyone can fork the code and do whatever they want with it... by definition!

If more people want to run your code or my code or Greg Maxwell's code or Peter Rizun's code... well that's their right... that's their choice.

And its a beautiful thing because no one can force anyone to do anything.  You can run or not run any code you want.

We all knew this, getting into Bitcoin.  If a large group of people decided to run the same code (forming a consensus) and that happens to
be different from another large group with their own consensus, well I understand the ramifications but again, that was always part of the
deal with Bitcoin.  Not everyone would call that an "attack".  I wouldn't.   I am trying to avoid labels and just describe things as they are.
------


@Xester: search on [Level 3] Anti-split protection

[iamnotback]

I wish you a full recovery from your TB ...as well as your psychological problems  (jk on the last part)  

Lol. Ty. I don't anticipate Stockholm's syndrome w.r.t. to the discombobulated delirium effects. 

[Amph]

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)

it's funny how the most dangerous thing about bitcoin is the only way now to solve this issue, with a 51% we can also change the pow and get rid of chinese dictatorship

the problem is that chinese is holding 70% of the net, so unless core do fork their own coins called bitcoin core again, and leave chinese with the old chain that will become BU, there is nothing we can do

[Lauda]

"Attacking a minority hashrate chain stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced." Meni Rosenfeld

Gavin Andresen, Peter Rizun and Jihan Wu have all favorably discussed the possibility that a majority hashrate chain will attack the minority (by way of selfish mining and empty block DoS).
This is a disgrace and stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.
...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6181y2/attacking_a_minority_hashrate_chain_stands/
With this statement, I fully agree with. Peter and the likes of him should be ashamed of themselves.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Attacking a minority hashrate chain stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced." Meni Rosenfeld

Gavin Andresen, Peter Rizun and Jihan Wu have all favorably discussed the possibility that a majority hashrate chain will attack the minority (by way of selfish mining and empty block DoS).
This is a disgrace and stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.
...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6181y2/attacking_a_minority_hashrate_chain_stands/
With this statement, I fully agree with. Peter and the likes of him should be ashamed of themselves.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.  I'm not 100% convinced they should be doing that. 

Their (Coinbase,Bitpay) intention is to prevent a confusing network split, and they may be right that
this will be good for Bitcoin in the short term, but philosophically it kind of makes more sense to
just let the market decide.

[leopard2]

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.

As soon as China starts "enforcing their regulation" onto Bitcoin transactions, the nuclear option will be the only option. The good news is that China cannot destroy everybodys private keys so no coins will be lost 

[pennywise]

bitcoin should remain decentralised and that means let the nodes vote. not the devs.
devs can move onto other projects, get old and retire, companies can change policies, and stop accepting a coin (circle for instance) so we need to think about what the community want.. not the corporate army of devs that are only temporary

The nodes should vote? How about USERS? What about the economic majority? They have shown their opinion in countless polls and Bitcoin Unlimited via hard fork is CLEARLY something they do not want. And yet here we see Franky explaining everyone how appropriate it is that miners+nodes push their agenda down everyone's throats.

Well let me tell you somenthing, Franky. You cannot tell the market who to prefer. It can only be the other way. Enforcin BU and successfully destroying bitcoin core will turn Bitcoin into an altcoin. Bitcoin will NEVER EVER regain the brand name and value it had compared to other coins. It will get lost in history. Sad ending. What BU is causing right now is treading over users choice. It will not go unpunished. Never.

[Carlton Banks]

"Attacking a minority hashrate chain stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced." Meni Rosenfeld

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.  I'm not 100% convinced they should be doing that. 

Be honest, you've already started supporting the 4th hard-fork coup attempt: EC-coin.

Out with the old, eh jonald

[jonald_fyookball]

bitcoin should remain decentralised and that means let the nodes vote. not the devs.
devs can move onto other projects, get old and retire, companies can change policies, and stop accepting a coin (circle for instance) so we need to think about what the community want.. not the corporate army of devs that are only temporary

The nodes should vote? How about USERS? What about the economic majority? They have shown their opinion in countless polls and Bitcoin Unlimited via hard fork is CLEARLY something they do not want. And yet here we see Franky explaining everyone how appropriate it is that miners+nodes push their agenda down everyone's throats.

Well let me tell you somenthing, Franky. You cannot tell the market who to prefer. It can only be the other way. Enforcin BU and successfully destroying bitcoin core will turn Bitcoin into an altcoin. Bitcoin will NEVER EVER regain the brand name and value it had compared to other coins. It will get lost in history. Sad ending. What BU is causing right now is treading over users choice. It will not go unpunished. Never.

but most people here wanted bigger blocks for the longest time.  sorry but we cant wait for LN -- we're getting killed by ethereum right now.  BTC marketshare below 70%. scary.