If Core had to hard fork and use another mining algorithm, what would it be?

[Wind_FURY]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

[1715273224]

1715273224

[1715273224]

1715273224

[1715273224]

1715273224

[1715273224]

1715273224

[1715273224]

1715273224

[QuintLeo]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

 FUD, and particularly stupid FUD at that.

 Bitcoin is not going to switch algo, Segwit is a protocol that runs ON TOP OF the Bitcoin blockchain and does not affect Bitcoin mining AT ALL.

 There may be a fork to impliment SegWit (I'm pretty sure they have to do that) but it's only going to affect the WALLETS not the underlying mining algorithm.

[achow101]

FUD, and particularly stupid FUD at that.

 Bitcoin is not going to switch algo, Segwit is a protocol that runs ON TOP OF the Bitcoin blockchain and does not affect Bitcoin mining AT ALL.

 There may be a fork to impliment SegWit (I'm pretty sure they have to do that) but it's only going to affect the WALLETS not the underlying mining algorithm.

No, that is incorrect. Segwit requires a soft fork to activate, and in fact, has already activated. What you are thinking of is the Lightning Network or sidechains.

Segwit2x is a (improperly named) proposal to make an additional hard fork to a maximum of 8 million block weight (double that of segwit's 4 million block weight). It currently has very little user and business support and supposedly a majority of miner support. However it is not clear how much of the miner support actually supports segwit2x now and will support it in the future if the vast majority of users and businesses don't support segwit2x.

[Argon2]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

If core gets 10% hash rate and SegWit2x gets 90%  Core said they would "move onto other projects".

[Wind_FURY]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

 FUD, and particularly stupid FUD at that.

 Bitcoin is not going to switch algo, Segwit is a protocol that runs ON TOP OF the Bitcoin blockchain and does not affect Bitcoin mining AT ALL.

 There may be a fork to impliment SegWit (I'm pretty sure they have to do that) but it's only going to affect the WALLETS not the underlying mining algorithm.

I posted IF 90% of the miners will still follow through with Segwit2x on November. I did not say it will happen for sure.

If core gets 10% hash rate and SegWit2x gets 90%  Core said they would "move onto other projects".

Core will move onto "other projects" only if a large majority of the users support Segwit2x, together with the miners. But if 90% of the miners will still push for Segwit2x, and the users still want the original chain, then it will make sense to change the Proof of Work algorithm, according to Greg Maxwell.

I tried searching for the Reddit post but it is hard to find.

[Carlton Banks]

This could turn into a cat & mouse situation, and so there could be regular PoW hash algo changes to combat the latest calls of "hey, we're upgrading Bitcoin for you with a super special network hard fork! So, we'll write the new super special software, and everything will be fine, just like before.... but better!!!"

It doesn't really matter though, any fork will demonstrate the true intentions behind it once it's been enacted, sooner or later. Understanding the programming or the cryptography won't be necessary, the effect to end-users on their abilities to use (and their money's subsequent unit market value) will make it obvious whether the fork was intended to provide value to the users or those who chose to do the fork.

[HeRetiK]

Segwit2x is a (improperly named) proposal to make an additional hard fork to a maximum of 8 million block weight (double that of segwit's 4 million block weight). It currently has very little user and business support and supposedly a majority of miner support. However it is not clear how much of the miner support actually supports segwit2x now and will support it in the future if the vast majority of users and businesses don't support segwit2x.

Isn't BitPay still planning on supporting Segwit2x over Bitcoin Core? If so I wouldn't call the business support "little", as BitPay is currently one of the most important gateways to mainstream merchants. Or have they changed their stance?

[achow101]

Segwit2x is a (improperly named) proposal to make an additional hard fork to a maximum of 8 million block weight (double that of segwit's 4 million block weight). It currently has very little user and business support and supposedly a majority of miner support. However it is not clear how much of the miner support actually supports segwit2x now and will support it in the future if the vast majority of users and businesses don't support segwit2x.

Isn't BitPay still planning on supporting Segwit2x over Bitcoin Core? If so I wouldn't call the business support "little", as BitPay is currently one of the most important gateways to mainstream merchants. Or have they changed their stance?

But that is only one business out of many businesses, even if they are large. Just because a few businesses, a few users, and a few miners support 2x does not mean that it has consensus and is going to happen.

[manselr]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

If core gets 10% hash rate and SegWit2x gets 90%  Core said they would "move onto other projects".

It would be a shame that Core devs give up because of miners getting bribed by corporations, this should have been expected to happen sooner or later. Core devs must never give up, in the long term we will win.

Even if in the theoretical disaster scenario where segwit2x scam gets 90% of hashrate, Core should continue with whatever hashrate that is supporting them, because in the long term, the incompetence of the idiots running segwit2x would show up and then everyone would regret stopping supporting Core, and we would get our hashrate back and a lesson learned to never hardfork again. They can bribe hashrate but they can't bribe Core devs and real talent, in the end we will win.

[HeRetiK]

Segwit2x is a (improperly named) proposal to make an additional hard fork to a maximum of 8 million block weight (double that of segwit's 4 million block weight). It currently has very little user and business support and supposedly a majority of miner support. However it is not clear how much of the miner support actually supports segwit2x now and will support it in the future if the vast majority of users and businesses don't support segwit2x.

Isn't BitPay still planning on supporting Segwit2x over Bitcoin Core? If so I wouldn't call the business support "little", as BitPay is currently one of the most important gateways to mainstream merchants. Or have they changed their stance?

But that is only one business out of many businesses, even if they are large. Just because a few businesses, a few users, and a few miners support 2x does not mean that it has consensus and is going to happen.

Assuming BitPay isn't going to budge, even if a majority of users decide against Segwit2x as the canonical Bitcoin chain, do we have any alternatives? For most businesses BitPay is the only way to accept Bitcoin. Losing BitPay would mean we lose pretty much all of the mainstream market unless comparable alternatives are available.

[Carlton Banks]

Losing BitPay would mean we lose pretty much all of the mainstream market unless comparable alternatives are available.

Bitpay is not the only B2C payments processor in the market, nor have I heard it said that Bitpay will refuse to service transactions from the Bitcoin blockchain in the event that Segwit2x forks away from the Bitcoin blockchain.

But it's kind of an interesting aspect of this situation; if Bitpay refuse to take payments from the cryptocurrency with the biggest economy and/or monetary base (as is their present mission statement), then why not? Even if Segwit2x displaced Bitcoin in these metrics, it would still be a little strange.

[QuintLeo]

This could turn into a cat & mouse situation, and so there could be regular PoW hash algo changes to combat the latest calls of "hey, we're upgrading Bitcoin for you with a super special network hard fork! So, we'll write the new super special software, and everything will be fine, just like before.... but better!!!"

It doesn't really matter though, any fork will demonstrate the true intentions behind it once it's been enacted, sooner or later. Understanding the programming or the cryptography won't be necessary, the effect to end-users on their abilities to use (and their money's subsequent unit market value) will make it obvious whether the fork was intended to provide value to the users or those who chose to do the fork.

 Any coin that "regularly changed it's algo" would be cutting it's OWN throat - users are NOT going to tolerate the disruption of having their coins become UNAVAILABLE on a regular basis due to algo-forced wallet changes and NO MINER HASHRATE TO CONFIRM TRANSACTIONS during these changeovers.

[Carlton Banks]

Any coin that "regularly changed it's algo" would be cutting it's OWN throat - users are NOT going to tolerate the disruption of having their coins become UNAVAILABLE on a regular basis due to algo-forced wallet changes and NO MINER HASHRATE TO CONFIRM TRANSACTIONS during these changeovers.

It could be implemented in way that wouldn't involve huge breaks in the hashrate, so I would forget about that angle

[DooMAD]

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?

 FUD, and particularly stupid FUD at that.

 Bitcoin is not going to switch algo, Segwit is a protocol that runs ON TOP OF the Bitcoin blockchain and does not affect Bitcoin mining AT ALL.

 There may be a fork to impliment SegWit (I'm pretty sure they have to do that) but it's only going to affect the WALLETS not the underlying mining algorithm.

I posted IF 90% of the miners will still follow through with Segwit2x on November. I did not say it will happen for sure.

If core gets 10% hash rate and SegWit2x gets 90%  Core said they would "move onto other projects".

Core will move onto "other projects" only if a large majority of the users support Segwit2x, together with the miners. But if 90% of the miners will still push for Segwit2x, and the users still want the original chain, then it will make sense to change the Proof of Work algorithm, according to Greg Maxwell.

I tried searching for the Reddit post but it is hard to find.

If it's proving difficult to locate on Reddit, is it possibly because it was on twitter instead?  I honestly can't tell if it was an off-the-cuff comment or if he's serious.  Also, it's not like he speaks for everyone in Core.  The general impression I get is that lukejr is towards the more radical end of the development scale, whereas others in core are a little more moderate and cautious in their approach, so it speaks volumes to me that it's his tweet and not one other the other devs.  If there were some likelihood of all the Core devs leaving the project in November, we would have seen some press articles about it by now, surely?

[Wind_FURY]

I found it. It was not on Reddit after all. I was in an article written by Kyle Torpey. https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/

DooMad, I do not believe it was an off the cut comment because it looked like he was interviewed by Kyle Torpey. This is what he said about the possibility of a change in the Proof of Work algorithm.

In a situation where the majority of miners are supporting SegWit2x and users still prefer the original chain, Maxwell noted that a change to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm (SHA-256) would “make sense”. The Blockstream CTO does not view SHA-256 as a defining trait of the Bitcoin system, and he noted that it may need to be changed in the future for security reasons anyway.

Changing the proof-of-work algorithm would effectively destroy the investments bitcoin miners have made into specialized hardware used for the mining process. Maxwell referred to this as a “nuclear option”.

It will depend on the Bitcoin community.

[Carlton Banks]

This is what he said about the possibility of a change in the Proof of Work algorithm.

In a situation where the majority of miners are supporting SegWit2x and users still prefer the original chain, Maxwell noted that a change to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm (SHA-256) would “make sense”. The Blockstream CTO does not view SHA-256 as a defining trait of the Bitcoin system, and he noted that it may need to be changed in the future for security reasons anyway.

Changing the proof-of-work algorithm would effectively destroy the investments bitcoin miners have made into specialized hardware used for the mining process. Maxwell referred to this as a “nuclear option”.

It will depend on the Bitcoin community.

And I expect such a move would find very significant support in the Bitcoin community, it's simply not wise to trust the Seg2x developers when they are either unknown or, worse, known to be enthusiastically against the principles of permission-less sound money.

And then it would be true gold rush time, any new hashing algo chosen would be carefully vetted to be sure that the development time/cost for an ASIC would be maximised. A whole new generation of Bitcoin home miners would flourish

I expect DooMAD to ridicule this and make subtle points steering any readers in the direction of the Segwit2x fork, as usual, but let's remember that he's the only voice on the whole Bitcointalk board even faintly supporting Segwit2x. There's no proven case in favour of the move, and all other information suggests there are several reasons against the November hardfork.

Cue DooMAD, talking about how much he "favours choice", yet refuses to ever acknowledge the value proposition of the supposed choice that's actually being forced on the users (except when people are suggested to choose something that threatens the miner cartel, oh what a strange coincidence ), take it away son

[manselr]

This is what he said about the possibility of a change in the Proof of Work algorithm.

In a situation where the majority of miners are supporting SegWit2x and users still prefer the original chain, Maxwell noted that a change to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm (SHA-256) would “make sense”. The Blockstream CTO does not view SHA-256 as a defining trait of the Bitcoin system, and he noted that it may need to be changed in the future for security reasons anyway.

Changing the proof-of-work algorithm would effectively destroy the investments bitcoin miners have made into specialized hardware used for the mining process. Maxwell referred to this as a “nuclear option”.

It will depend on the Bitcoin community.

And I expect such a move would find very significant support in the Bitcoin community, it's simply not wise to trust the Seg2x developers when they are either unknown or, worse, known to be enthusiastically against the principles of permission-less sound money.

And then it would be true gold rush time, any new hashing algo chosen would be carefully vetted to be sure that the development time/cost for an ASIC would be maximised. A whole new generation of Bitcoin home miners would flourish

I expect DooMAD to ridicule this and make subtle points steering any readers in the direction of the Segwit2x fork, as usual, but let's remember that he's the only voice on the whole Bitcointalk board even faintly supporting Segwit2x. There's no proven case in favour of the move, and all other information suggests there are several reasons against the Novemeber hardfork.

Cue DooMAD, talking about how much he "favours choice", yet refuses to ever acknowledge the value proposition of the supposed choice that's actually being forced on the users (except when people are suggested to choose something that threatens the miner cartel, oh what a strange coincidence ), take it away son

It seems there's a lot of people scared about segwit2x being a success because Coinbase, Xapo and BitPay are supporting it. I believe the weight of these businesses is widely overblown and its impact on bitcoin is simply overrated, but a lot of people get intimidated by these "big names" and their CEOs supporting the segwit2x scam.

I hope all of them get judged by history as they are forced to reject the segwit2x scam because nobody is running nodes (real nodes, not a bunch of nodes in a farm) supporting the scam software developed by CIA agent Jeff Garzik.

[DooMAD]

This is what he said about the possibility of a change in the Proof of Work algorithm.

In a situation where the majority of miners are supporting SegWit2x and users still prefer the original chain, Maxwell noted that a change to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm (SHA-256) would “make sense”. The Blockstream CTO does not view SHA-256 as a defining trait of the Bitcoin system, and he noted that it may need to be changed in the future for security reasons anyway.

Changing the proof-of-work algorithm would effectively destroy the investments bitcoin miners have made into specialized hardware used for the mining process. Maxwell referred to this as a “nuclear option”.

It will depend on the Bitcoin community.

And I expect such a move would find very significant support in the Bitcoin community, it's simply not wise to trust the Seg2x developers when they are either unknown or, worse, known to be enthusiastically against the principles of permission-less sound money.

And then it would be true gold rush time, any new hashing algo chosen would be carefully vetted to be sure that the development time/cost for an ASIC would be maximised. A whole new generation of Bitcoin home miners would flourish

I expect DooMAD to ridicule this and make subtle points steering any readers in the direction of the Segwit2x fork, as usual, but let's remember that he's the only voice on the whole Bitcointalk board even faintly supporting Segwit2x. There's no proven case in favour of the move, and all other information suggests there are several reasons against the November hardfork.

Cue DooMAD, talking about how much he "favours choice", yet refuses to ever acknowledge the value proposition of the supposed choice that's actually being forced on the users (except when people are suggested to choose something that threatens the miner cartel, oh what a strange coincidence ), take it away son

I mainly ridicule idiots who constantly babble on about hostile takeovers and power grabs, but thankfully you aren't doing that routine today.  If a majority of the hashpower does fork away, I have no qualms whatsoever with a change in mining algorithm.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The hashrate has to come from somewhere, so CPU miners at home would be perfectly prudent and realistic. 

[Carlton Banks]

If a majority of the hashpower does fork away, I have no qualms whatsoever with a change in mining algorithm.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The hashrate has to come from somewhere, so CPU miners at home would be perfectly prudent and realistic.  

Hmmm, yet before your opinion was wildly different. You claimed that the chain with most PoW will be, by your own personal decree, called Bitcoin, and any remaining fork of the blockchain would be an altcoin.

Maybe you should stick to your alleged principles, and actually let people choose. And hey, maybe you could offer a qualitative assessment of the choices, instead of painting yourself as some kind of unbiased observer, while actually doing a very subtle job of steering peoples opinions on psychological/subjective matters regarding cryptocurrency hard forks (sorry to inform you, it hasn't worked, no-one much is interested in the rather thinly disguised attempt to take the development reins that you've been tacitly supporting)

[DooMAD]

If a majority of the hashpower does fork away, I have no qualms whatsoever with a change in mining algorithm.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The hashrate has to come from somewhere, so CPU miners at home would be perfectly prudent and realistic.  

Hmmm, yet before your opinion was wildly different. You claimed that the chain with most PoW will be, by your own personal decree, called Bitcoin, and any remaining fork of the blockchain would be an altcoin.

Maybe you should stick to your alleged principles, and actually let people choose. And hey, maybe you could offer a qualitative assessment of the choices, instead of painting yourself as some kind of unbiased observer, while actually doing a very subtle job of steering peoples opinions on psychological/subjective matters regarding cryptocurrency hard forks (sorry to inform you, it hasn't worked, no-one much is interested in the rather thinly disguised attempt to take the development reins that you've been tacitly supporting)

The minority chain would indeed be the altcoin, but that doesn't mean I won't be hodling it or following its development (despite the considerable downside of still having to share a chain with you).  And what possible bizarre-o through-the-looking-glass realm have I entered when the little fuhrer who thinks people are only free to choose when they agree with him gets on their high horse and tries to lecture me on "letting people choose"?  That's just too funny.   

Let's hear some more about how great permissionlessness is in one breath while lambasting alternative developers for not bowing down to Core in the next.  Hypocrite.