Do miners really think destroying Bitcoin will make them rich?

[bettercrypto]

Miners have invested millions in bitcoin, do you really think they're so stupid to destroy it?

If you are opposed to the miners, you should think twice about your opinions, because miners only want 1 thing.    

Miners want bitcoin to be successful, because otherwise they lose millions.

Investors can just sell their bitcoin and they'll be fine, even if they invested millions into bitcoin. Miners can't sell their hardware and recover their investment. So miners will be the one who suffer most when bitcoin crashes.   
They will do everything in their power to keep bitcoin healthy.

I agree, miners are not that dumb to kill their cow.  If I aske you, would you kill your own source of income?  Do not put the blame on miners about this recent problem, miners are just mining, they probably setting up their miners to pick up transaction that have high fees but this should be blamed to the people who put a larger amount of tx fee.  If people agreed to limit their tx fee, then there is nothing the miner can do but pick them because it will be their lost if they do not get this tx fee.  Remember they are always competing against each other so if some miners keep themselves stubborn and not pick up the agreed tx fee of these senders, someone will happily get them into the blocks.

[1714026235]

1714026235

[1714026235]

1714026235

[1714026235]

1714026235

[deisik]

But as I said, you should first fully understand the problem yourself (to correctly scale down). That's basically how any scientific discipline is taught. If you are a university professor or a school teacher, you always proceed from the lower scope all the way up to your own limits or limits required by the curriculum. I can't explain the measurement problem in quantum theory because I don't understand it myself, but whatever I understand I can always (I repeat again, always) explain it in a few sentences within the scope of understanding of whoever may get interested. As an aside, that's basically what makes an interesting read

You have no idea how ironically wrong your message is if you would know who I am.

If your fundamental thesis is that everything is explicable to anyone "in a few sentences", your pedagogical (and most probably your academic) skills are very limited, and the proof of that is so terribly simple that it is stultifying that you can't grasp it: most courses by "professors and school teachers" take more than a few sentences.  Most scientific papers are more than a few sentences

I don't care who you are

If you talk bullshit that will remain bullshit no matter who you might be (though I really doubt that you are somebody). For a pissing contest, you may want to look elsewhere (iamnotback will make you a good company, I guess). The aim or courses is to expand knowledge base but you can't expand without proper understanding what has been explained before. And this expansion is done in small increments, basically, a thing explained conceptually in a few sentences if you please and then elaborated to gory details. Going down the learning curve is a pretty good test to see the real level of understanding the subject. In other words, if you can't explain a thing in simple terms within the scope of someone's understanding, your abstruse verbiage goes straight out the window even if it is technically correct (while in your case it is no more than just empty verbiage)

[qiwoman2]

Whatever happens, some solution to the whole scaling and transaction issue has to be found and fast. If Bitcoin is to remain in it's position then it has to be refined and sorted out in a way that pleases everyone. If transaction fees get too high and transaction times get too long, people will turn to other altcoin solutions for their daily needs and Bitcoin will be placed in a position of wealth storage tool as opposed to merchant friendly tool.

[dinofelis]

But as I said, you should first fully understand the problem yourself (to correctly scale down). That's basically how any scientific discipline is taught. If you are a university professor or a school teacher, you always proceed from the lower scope all the way up to your own limits or limits required by the curriculum. I can't explain the measurement problem in quantum theory because I don't understand it myself, but whatever I understand I can always (I repeat again, always) explain it in a few sentences within the scope of understanding of whoever may get interested. As an aside, that's basically what makes an interesting read

You have no idea how ironically wrong your message is if you would know who I am.

If your fundamental thesis is that everything is explicable to anyone "in a few sentences", your pedagogical (and most probably your academic) skills are very limited, and the proof of that is so terribly simple that it is stultifying that you can't grasp it: most courses by "professors and school teachers" take more than a few sentences.  Most scientific papers are more than a few sentences

I don't care who you are

If you talk bullshit that will remain bullshit no matter who you might be (though I really doubt that you are somebody). For a pissing contest, you may want to look elsewhere (iamnotback will make you a good company, I guess). The aim or courses is to expand knowledge base but you can't expand without proper understanding what has been explained before. And this expansion is done in small increments, basically, a thing explained conceptually in a few sentences if you please and then elaborated to gory details. Going down the learning curve is a pretty good test to see the real level of understanding the subject. In other words, if you can't explain a thing in simple terms within the scope of someone's understanding, your abstruse verbiage goes straight out the window even if it is technically correct (while in your case it is no more than just empty verbiage)

It is a pity that you have turned this learning opportunity in a pissing contest, as you say, because of your unwillingness to admit that your lack of attention span width rendered your initial technical and erroneous objection moot when engaging in a technical discussion, which I tried to keep as simple and to the point as possible.  

Re-read the posts from there, and you will see that your shifted attack, namely "you couldn't explain why I was wrong in a few sentences", is a childish response to someone who had taken the pains to explain to you in HALF A PAGE with a mathematically traceable example exactly where the problem in your objection was lying.

In other words, we have the typical example of the not too smart student that tells the professor he's wrong, and when the professor gives him a more involved proof on the black board, goes whining that the argument is too long and hence the professor is an asshole that doesn't know how to teach.

Again: in one sentence:

you are confusing entropy of secret key/password with brute-forcing hash functions.

Short enough ?

Here are (again) the longer explanations:

You confused me since I wasn't thinking quite clearly yesterday

Indeed, this approach doesn't add to security, but that was not my point initially which I somehow lost during this conversation with you myself. My point is that if you are reversing the hash function you will still have to brute force all passwords as you would do if there was no hash function at all.

Yes, so ?

In this way, hash function doesn't lower the security which you seem to accept yourself, and this was exactly my point.

No, of course not, it conserves entropy as long as the input is smaller than the output.  But that was not the point.  In other words, your example is right, but non sequitur for what I said earlier.

In other words, you would anyway do the same amount of work, and there is no shortcut or backdoor which could give you a clue what a password might be, for example, its length

Nope. That's your error.

Providing a "hash with conditions" is a proof of work *because of the assumed irreversibility of the hash function* ; because you have no other way of satisfying the condition on the hash output, but to try randomly at the input.

However, if you crack the hash function, that is, if you can find EASILY all input solutions that give a given output hash, then providing a hash that satisfies a given condition is NOT a proof of work any more.

This has nothing to do with your example of transforming entropy, because proof of work is not a matter of entropy.

Let us take a very simple example.  Suppose my silly hash function is again:
f(n) = (K.n + C) mod M, with K,M and C fixed parameters of the hash function.  I'm a naive guy thinking that my hash function is a good, irreversible function.

Essentially, my hash function takes on ANY number n, and produces a number between 0 and M-1.  Let us say that M is a big prime number, with 256 bits, and K is of that order too and C too.  If you put arbitrary numbers into this function, you get arbitrary-looking numbers out.

Now, if I want you to give me some proof of work, I give you a number A, and I want you to find a number N so that:

f ( f(N) XOR A) < Z

If my hash function is irreversible, the only thing you can do is to try this function so many times as needed, which must be on average 2^256 / Z times.

However, if f is reversible (and it is !), I pick a number, say, Z/2.  I calculate (easily) an inverse value U such that f(U) = Z/2.  I calculate easily V = A xor U, and I calculate just as easily W such that f(W) = V.

W satisfies the condition I asked, but I didn't have to provide for any work of the order of calculating 2^256 / Z hashes.  Hell, I could put in Z = 0, and with the same effort, I calculate U' such that f(U') = 0 (even before you gave me A!) ; I calculate V' = U' xor A ; I calculate W' such that f(W') = V'.  Done.

[deisik]

Miners have invested millions in bitcoin, do you really think they're so stupid to destroy it?

If you are opposed to the miners, you should think twice about your opinions, because miners only want 1 thing.   

Miners want bitcoin to be successful, because otherwise they lose millions.

Investors can just sell their bitcoin and they'll be fine, even if they invested millions into bitcoin. Miners can't sell their hardware and recover their investment. So miners will be the one who suffer most when bitcoin crashes.   
They will do everything in their power to keep bitcoin healthy.

I agree, miners are not that dumb to kill their cow.  If I aske you, would you kill your own source of income?  Do not put the blame on miners about this recent problem, miners are just mining, they probably setting up their miners to pick up transaction that have high fees but this should be blamed to the people who put a larger amount of tx fee.  If people agreed to limit their tx fee, then there is nothing the miner can do but pick them because it will be their lost if they do not get this tx fee.  Remember they are always competing against each other so if some miners keep themselves stubborn and not pick up the agreed tx fee of these senders, someone will happily get them into the blocks

You are right, miners are not that dumb. To continue feeding this cow when it finally stops producing milk. But apart from giving milk, the cow is utterly useless to them as such while they are not idealists staking some lofty ideas above more material profits, so it makes sense for them to butcher it and sell the meat to whoever is going to pay for it. Therefore, the answer is certainly yes, if this source is exhausted or about to be exhausted in the nearest future, it makes sense to get rid of it, especially if you are going to get paid for doing just that

In short, no milk today!

[deisik]

you are confusing entropy of secret key/password with brute-forcing hash functions.

Short enough?

And how many people will get a clue what you are talking about?

Here's a simple but totally valid explanation why reversing hash function is meaningless and ultimately futile. If you multiply something by 0, you will get 0, as simple as it gets. In a sense, multiplication by zero is as ultimate a hash function as it is useless for any practical purpose. If you tried to reverse it (I won't post links to your posts where you talked about that as if it made sense), you would get a set of possible values ranging from 0 to infinity (for non-negative values). And it is the same with any hash function, and it doesn't matter that a set of infinite collisions leading to this hash will in fact be only a subset of an even more infinite set since you are still dealing with infinity. When hashing you are losing information and there is no way back (note that here I'm not talking about my example with a password as such)

[dinofelis]

you are confusing entropy of secret key/password with brute-forcing hash functions.

Short enough?

And how many people will get a clue what you are talking about?

Anybody understanding the basics of cryptography.  I was willing to explain them, but I cannot teach you those basics "in a few lines".

But, if you want it "in a few lines", here it goes:

- entropy of a secret key/password is true ignorance.  If the only thing you have is a test of "yes, it is the right one" vs. "no, it is the wrong one", there's only one single way to destroy that entropy, and that is by trying all possibilities.  If you tell me: "I have a number in my head between 0 and 100, and I will tell you when you guessed it", the only thing I can do is try all numbers until I hit the right one.  So the work needed by guessing is essentially the work of 1 guess, times (grossly) the number of possible keys/passwords.  There's no other way.  It is pure entropy.

- brute-forcing a hash function is "finding an inverse" without knowing any better algorithm but trying all inputs.  If I require that the resulting hash is in 1/10^20 of the possible hash outcomes (for instance, if the output hash is in decimal notation, requiring that it starts with 20 zeros), you need, on average, to calculate 10^20 hashes before you hit one.  So as long as the hash function is irreversible, showing me the input that gives a hash output of that kind, proves that you calculated of the order of 10^20 hashes.  Proof of work.

If the hash function is cracked, and I have an algorithm that allows me to calculate the inverse hash function, then I only have to use my inverse algorithm once, and I can provide you with an input that will end up in this small set that is 1/10^20 of the whole hash output space.  I did a quick calculation, and you think I proved work.

Here's a simple but totally valid explanation why reversing hash function is meaningless and ultimately futile. If you multiply something by 0, you will get 0, as simple as it gets. In a sense, multiplication by zero is as ultimate a hash function as it is useless for any practical purpose.

Again, you're missing the point.  Proof of work consists in providing an INPUT to a hash function, so that, when you apply the hash function, you obtain a result that is a "special hash value".  Here, all hashes result in 0.  So this hash function never proves any work.

I'm not going to say more because otherwise it will again be too long for you.  It is maybe already.

[deisik]

Here's a simple but totally valid explanation why reversing hash function is meaningless and ultimately futile. If you multiply something by 0, you will get 0, as simple as it gets. In a sense, multiplication by zero is as ultimate a hash function as it is useless for any practical purpose.

Again, you're missing the point.  Proof of work consists in providing an INPUT to a hash function, so that, when you apply the hash function, you obtain a result that is a "special hash value".  Here, all hashes result in 0.  So this hash function never proves any work

In fact, it is you who is missing the whole point here

That was just an illustration of an easy-to-read and simple-to-understand explanation. It was not meant to prove anything as such since it was only to show how things should be explained in a clear-cut, concise and specific way. Honestly, you could spend half as much time and half as much space and convey at that times more if you actually cared about everyone understanding your point. Or do you really think anyone gives a fuck about your verbiage?

[dinofelis]

Here's a simple but totally valid explanation why reversing hash function is meaningless and ultimately futile. If you multiply something by 0, you will get 0, as simple as it gets. In a sense, multiplication by zero is as ultimate a hash function as it is useless for any practical purpose.

Again, you're missing the point.  Proof of work consists in providing an INPUT to a hash function, so that, when you apply the hash function, you obtain a result that is a "special hash value".  Here, all hashes result in 0.  So this hash function never proves any work

In fact, it is you who is missing the whole point here

That was just an illustration of an easy-to-read and simple-to-understand explanation. It was not meant to prove anything as such since it was only to show how things should be explained in a clear-cut, concise and specific way. Honestly, you could spend half as much time and half as much space and convey at that times more if you actually cared about everyone understanding your point. Or do you really think anyone gives a fuck about your verbiage?

Well, given that your entire point is ERRONEOUS, you just illustrated how "adequate" your technique of easy-to-read and simple-to-understand explanations of faulty matters is

One can lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink...

[deisik]

Here's a simple but totally valid explanation why reversing hash function is meaningless and ultimately futile. If you multiply something by 0, you will get 0, as simple as it gets. In a sense, multiplication by zero is as ultimate a hash function as it is useless for any practical purpose.

Again, you're missing the point.  Proof of work consists in providing an INPUT to a hash function, so that, when you apply the hash function, you obtain a result that is a "special hash value".  Here, all hashes result in 0.  So this hash function never proves any work

In fact, it is you who is missing the whole point here

That was just an illustration of an easy-to-read and simple-to-understand explanation. It was not meant to prove anything as such since it was only to show how things should be explained in a clear-cut, concise and specific way. Honestly, you could spend half as much time and half as much space and convey at that times more if you actually cared about everyone understanding your point. Or do you really think anyone gives a fuck about your verbiage?

Well, given that your entire point is ERRONEOUS, you just illustrated how "adequate" your technique of easy-to-read and simple-to-understand explanations of faulty matters is

One can lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink...

I told it twice already (this is the third time) that I'm not very familiar how Bitcoin works internally in respect to cryptography, and I don't understand why PoW doesn't cut it. My point basically came down to assuming that "cracking" Bitcoin would require as much work as it took to get it where it is now. Your efforts at explaining this failed (provided you really tried in the first place). As the other poster has said, your lengthy posts are looking more like intellectual trolling (though I seriously doubt about the so-called intellectual part of them). I don't need lengthy wannabe explanations. I need a short, precise and simple answer

See my explanation above as a reference point

[andrew24p]

Miners mostly operate on immediate incentives. They arent storing massive amounts of coins for specualtion, they are making money here and now, paying bills and doing what is best for them.

[A Feeder]

Not all miners do that things, it depends on what type of mining attack they try to do. Now bitcoin is good there isn't that much to worry about bitcoin because everything is fine.

[watchurstep45]

If you look at the way things are going now, you might realize that miners have lost the plot. They are sabotaging the whole Bitcoin experiment, because they want to make more profit and if they cannot do this, they will attack the minority chain to achieve their goal.

Satoshi had hoped that this will never happen, but it is happening now. Miners are willing to kill the cow to feed them now, even if the cow is providing milk on a daily basis.

What is Bitcoin without people using it?
What is Bitcoin without trust? < If people stop trusting that miners will act in good faith to keep the cow alive >
What is Bitcoin without security? < 51% attacks provide no security >
What is Bitcoin with no value?

Some of these miners should realize that the "milking" of Bitcoin users will stop, once they have killed the cow. We should act in the best interest of this technology and reduce the hold they have over us.

~ Pay less fees < Just be patient > They are getting $350 000 daily in higher tx fees according to Trace Mayer.
~ Fire up the old miners and host nodes to have a say
~ Ask developers to change the code to keep them honest or to remove the hold they have over the Bitcoin users.

Let's change our mindset and show these miners who makes up Bitcoin. ^grrrrrrr^

I think it's not possible because many miners are wealthy even if they do not break the bitcoin. For me many miners want the bitcoin because they make a big profit and I think the miner and the bitcoin are united to raise the bitcoin together the miners

[Shresherya]

Bitcoin died when all those ASIC mining companies made appearance. We should do something about it and bring bitcoin mining back to home level. Mining companies made bitcoin centralized, that's all.

[deisik]

Bitcoin died when all those ASIC mining companies made appearance. We should do something about it and bring bitcoin mining back to home level. Mining companies made bitcoin centralized, that's all.

It is easier said than done!

What can we really do? The only way to make Bitcoin great again, i.e. to decentralize it properly is to move it from the POW to POS consensus paradigm, but that would require miners agreement. Obviously, they are not going to kill the goose laying golden eggs, so the only way you can change things is to fork Bitcoin. But do you know how many Bitcoin forks have already been there during just the last year? At least a few dozens, so good luck and more power to you with switching Bitcoin to POS. And I don't think that many would agree that Bitcoin has died. Last time I checked it was still alive and kicking, probably more alive than the total majority of its competitors taken together

[BillyBee]

If the transaction costs are too high and the transaction time is too long, people will move on to other altcoin solutions for their daily needs and Bitcoin will be placed at the wealthy hosting tool instead of proprietary tools. good with the seller. They do not store a large amount of coins for specualtion, they are making money here and now, paying bills and doing what is best for them. Now bitcoin is good not much to worry about bitcoin because everything is fine. We should do something about it and bring bitcoin mining back home. I do not think Bitcoin's destruction can make the miners rich, but they also lose the chance to make money. The threats on both sides are clear.

[fudster]

They say BItcoin is centralized when it comes to the ones mining, I am not sure what they meant by this but perhaps its true because I have heard of these claim over and over to whcih there are only few mining pools which can control bitcoin soon. Which could lead to the questions as to whether can miners kill bitcoin?

There is no assurance what could happen in the next few more years but there thousands of coins that can replace BTC spot on top, there's ETH, XRP, EOS and most probably EOS.

[princeyeboah]

Destroying Bitcoins will not enrich miners but will rather render Bitcoin more worthless on the market. When Bitcoin becomes worthless, what do miners stand to achieve for mining Bitcoins. Bitcoin needs promotion not destruction in order to create more demand for Bitcoin.