Am I missing something or is BTU at 45% of the network hash

[jonald_fyookball]

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

IMHO you're wrong.

Nodes can only confirm (positive vote if you prefer).
Confirmation is not the same as voting.
To confirm is to give support, to vote is to decide.

Imagine there are 1,000,000 Bitcoin Core nodes and 5,000 Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And yet the transactions of Bitcoin Unlimited would work smoothly without any problem.

Now imagine that with enough computing power, consecutive empty blocks are being mined in Bitcoin Core's preferred blockchain.
Having a million nodes would not fix the problem.

Hard is hard.

Sorry if i wasn't clear. i never used the word "node".   User means buyer/investor here. 

[1714764476]

1714764476

[1714764476]

1714764476

[1714764476]

1714764476

[1714764476]

1714764476

[1714764476]

1714764476

[felipehermanns]

I think we are close to the next closed source patch for BUg, maybe this weekend, who knows, maybe tomorrow, BUg is in conflict with its own existance.

 

[stdset]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

[jonald_fyookball]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes? 

[stdset]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes? 

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

[jonald_fyookball]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes? 

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

Non mining nodes aren't that important.  They help propagate and relay and that's about it.

[stdset]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes? 

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

Non mining nodes aren't that important.  They help propagate and relay and that's about it.

If setting up a full node isn't very expensive new mining nodes will appear.

[squatz1]

Yeah the variance is pretty disgusting as BU miners seem to be getting a lot of luck when it comes to who is mining the blocks these days, maybe we'll see a shift to Segwit and then back and forth and so on.

This is the site I use to watch all of this - https://coin.dance/blocks

It shows that around 38 percent of the miners support BU but it ends up that 45 percent of the blocks today have been mined by them, so it's really pure luck and variance.

We're being forced into PoW change. The sooner everyone admits this, the sooner we can move on, and with Bitcoin as undamaged as possible, preferably.

Well if you do PoW change at least make it GPU friendly so CPU botnets won't take over.

Wouldn't want such a drastic change like this, it would kill most of the ASIC miners who have puts tons of money into investments. Probably would lead to some legal trouble too - didn't a mining company threaten that already?

[XbladeX]

****
Non mining nodes aren't that important.  They help propagate and relay and that's about it.
****

With current state of centralized mining (China monopolized market mostly) nodes are gate keepers of OLD rules.
If you let nodes die via too big blocks it will and that node will have only miners and maybe exchanges.
Here you stand at brick of miners hegemony.Node ar like watchman on duty.
System needs to check and balance.

[jonald_fyookball]

****
Non mining nodes aren't that important.  They help propagate and relay and that's about it.
****

With current state of centralized mining (China monopolized market mostly) nodes are gate keepers of OLD rules.
 

well ok... but i still want miners to decide block size.  its the only way out of this mess when you have an out of control
dev team controlled by a corporation that doesn't listen to the users. 

[pinkflower]

No, youre not missing anything. Bitcoin will surely hardfork to Bitcoin Unlimited before this year ends. Its slowly gaining the numbers and its trending to > %50. When it reaches that stage it will not be a case of if anymore but when. Although Ive heard about an emergency POW algorithm upgrade that will put a stop to all this.

Be Interesting to see who the Public Trust More
China with the ASICS
or
Hackers with their Botnets
(Because they have access to the most CPU power.)

 

Hehehe. It will be hard to speculate on something like that because we dont know what kind of POW algorithm will replace SHA256. I hope it will be something more energy efficient if thats possible.

For the public's trust it would be better to be safe and hold both coins. One of them is deemed from money anyway.