hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF)

[jornaldobitcoin]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize? 

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

[Viscount]

Another BU shill? no need to speculate such complicated schemes. It's just chinese miners and Vermin trying to take over bitcoin, just see some facts.

[Viscount]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

[jornaldobitcoin]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

[jonald_fyookball]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.   

[Yakamoto]

<snip>

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize? 

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Well, BU is a solution to a debate we're having in the community, and this might just be convenient timing for banks and they're exploiting the situation that has been made available to them.

While this is being slightly tinfoil-y there hasn't been a better opportunity for banks to step in and look to cement some power by offering a good solution to a problem that their opponent (us) is having. If your opponent is making a mistake, put on a mask and solve it for him. Make sure he owes you.

[jornaldobitcoin]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

in this hypothesis they would be using blocksize discussion to divide and conquer.
They are already sold to the banks. No possibility of losing money.they sold their future mining operations, hardware, manufacturing.
It would create a possibility to stole bitcoin traction, name, or just try to hurt it for a cheaper cost of mining bankscoin in the future, or to prevent competition.
Users get hurt , at least in short term.
If someone reading this could make it reach higher levels in bitcoin community for analysis! i don´t want to spread this to the general public.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

[Kakmakr]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I saw somewhere that the Current network is about 3,300,000 TH/s or +/- 240 000 Antminer S9's. So you would need about $250 000 000+ to do this. <120 000 Antminer S9's @ roughly $2100 US = $ 250 000 000 US> This is only for the miners without the other cost to setup the operation.

Banks have investors and even if they manage to stop Bitcoin, it would not be a guarantee that another Crypto currency that are ASIC resistant will not take it's place.  

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

i've been thinking more about this and its' a great theory -- i think i was missing the point of what you were saying before...its not about BU, its about divide and conquer.  to me Core created a problem (by not raising 1mb)...BU trying to be solution...and then both sides just fight.  Brilliant!

[Xester]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

You have a good imagination. Though your idea is far fetch and far from the truth but it can be real  sometime in the future. We can call your post a conspiracy theory since there are no solid evidence that can back up your claims thus it remains as a theory or a hypothesis that lacks clear proof. But the moment you post your idea here you are giving an idea to the miners a way to earn fast money without thinking the negative effects on bitcoin.

[thejaytiesto]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

see my other thread, which was inspired by this one.

Banks don't have to bribe miners, they can get almost free hash power by investing in cloud mining.  And they will play both sides of the scaling debate off each other, which is why miners voting won't work anymore. 

Big bitcoin players just need to agree on a scaling solution and execute leadership.

[jornaldobitcoin]

i do think it is a dangerous idea. i´am trying not to spread it but i don´t have connections with people that have capacity to verify this and i am trying to reach someone because bitcoin matters a lot to me.
I also ask you not to spread it to the general public yet.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

Absolutely.

Blockstream is the most obvious culprit here...but its possible BU is controlled opposition.

I always liked the idea of just removing the blocksize limit:  Keep in mind that when Satoshi
put in the 1mb, the average block size was 1kb... yep 1000 times smaller.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

Absolutely.

Blockstream is the most obvious culprit here...but its possible BU is controlled opposition.

I always liked the idea of just removing the blocksize limit:  Keep in mind that when Satoshi
put in the 1mb, the average block size was 1kb... yep 1000 times smaller.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.