pow change to fight off segwit2x attack?

[vroom]

I already posted this in the general bitcoin discussion forum, but nobody replied. Now I'm trying my luck here.

September is almost over, only 1 month left until segwit2x becomes active. segwit2x tries to do as much damage as possible to bitcoin. they steal the name, they don't activate replay protection, and much more. they are even hiding there nodes:

Adding command-line arg to hide segwit2x service bit

source: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/109

with this change, bitcoin clients can not detect and disconnect segwit2x nodes from the network. Nodes that relay invalid blocks (segwit2x blocks) will become banned and this leads to a fragmented network.

A few weeks ago I read this comment on twitter. sadly it's already deleted but you can still find it on google if you search for it:

Can't wait to turn your ASICs into bricks.

are bitcore dev's threatening to change the PoW algorithms? this would be the ultimate last option to fight off the segwit2x/bcash attack. this would also make the ASIC mining hardware worthless.

so my question is, is there really a possibility for a pow change and what are the consequences of such a big change?

[1714803788]

1714803788

[1714803788]

1714803788

[1714803788]

1714803788

[1714803788]

1714803788

[Ucy]

Novice here. I have been following this battle for quite some time. Something tells me the Core folks mean well...I still trust them.
Do whatever is necessary to keep Bitcoin Open, Decentralized, transparent,democratic and every other beautiful thing you can think of.

[BillyBobZorton]

I already posted this in the general bitcoin discussion forum, but nobody replied. Now I'm trying my luck here.

September is almost over, only 1 month left until segwit2x becomes active. segwit2x tries to do as much damage as possible to bitcoin. they steal the name, they don't activate replay protection, and much more. they are even hiding there nodes:

Adding command-line arg to hide segwit2x service bit

source: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/109

with this change, bitcoin clients can not detect and disconnect segwit2x nodes from the network. Nodes that relay invalid blocks (segwit2x blocks) will become banned and this leads to a fragmented network.

A few weeks ago I read this comment on twitter. sadly it's already deleted but you can still find it on google if you search for it:

Can't wait to turn your ASICs into bricks.

are bitcore dev's threatening to change the PoW algorithms? this would be the ultimate last option to fight off the segwit2x/bcash attack. this would also make the ASIC mining hardware worthless.

so my question is, is there really a possibility for a pow change and what are the consequences of such a big change?

The POW change is a double edged sword. First, how do you calculate that you necessarily need to take this risk? How much % of hashrate is safe to not need to press the nuke button and how much isn't?

Once you change the POW, both miners and exchanges will need to have to deal with it, so you would suffer from both a crisis of hashrate and liquidity.

Honestly it's a big mess, but I would hate Core devs to give up on Bitcoin. Defeat is never an option, we must find a way to stop the segwit2x hardforkers.

In any case, randomized multi hash algorithm changes is a very interesting idea that must be explored in the future in order to stop corporations bribing miners to push their agendas.

[exstasie]

are bitcore dev's threatening to change the PoW algorithms? this would be the ultimate last option to fight off the segwit2x/bcash attack. this would also make the ASIC mining hardware worthless.

so my question is, is there really a possibility for a pow change and what are the consequences of such a big change?

Most Core developers are not advocating for this. The only developer I see consistently arguing for POW change is Luke Dash Jr. Honestly, after his role promoting BIP148, I wouldn't mind seeing his contingent fork off and leaving the discussion.

After they threatened to permanently split from Segwit nodes just to activate it a bit earlier, I consider them to be forkers, on the same level as those promoting Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Cash or Segwit2x.

Intelligent people understand that incompatible UASFs are no different in practice from hard forks. Those guys can take their NO2X hats and shove them up their ass, because if they promoted BIP148 (and the vast majority of NO2X handles, as far as I can tell, did), they are hypocrites.

The one upside I see to a Segwit2x miner coup and subsequent POW-changing (or difficulty-adjusting) hard fork, is that it might force these guys to fork off. Anyone who would permanently split from the network to activate Segwit a few months earlier doesn't give a shit about long term holders' interests.

The silent majority is silent. And I don't think I am alone when I say that I am getting fucking tired of the Samson Mow hat-and-Twitter-brigading crowd acting like they represent us.

They keep saying that companies don't represent Bitcoin users. I can agree with that. But they (and Luke) also claimed "consensus" for BIP148 on the basis of social media polls stuck in Luke's Twitter bubble. Disgusting and hypocritical. I will never forgive Luke for that and I really hope he forks off someday.

I have always supported Core. I have always supported Blockstream. I have always opposed hard forks. But I really think that Blockstream should get Samson Mow on a leash and calm down with the Twitter brigading. And stop with the damn hats. It's just alienating at this point.

[aleksej996]

are bitcore dev's threatening to change the PoW algorithms?

No. They aren't even considering it, let along threatening it.

Once you change the POW, both miners and exchanges will need to have to deal with it, so you would suffer from both a crisis of hashrate and liquidity.

Not really exchanges, just miners. It is true that big mining pools are often exchanges as well, due to the vast majority of coins they need to sell and the ease of setting up an exchange, but still not all exchanges at all. The point is that change in PoW really only affects blocks and not transactions, which exchanges deal with, but they use RPC calls anyway, so it is just enough for them to update their client. Miners however need new mining equipment as well.

Defeat is never an option, we must find a way to stop the segwit2x hardforkers.

We don't really need to stop them, they have a right to fork off if they wish. We can just ignore them, which would probably kill their blockchain anyway, but we shouldn't be hateful like that, just ignore them for our own reasons.

[HeRetiK]

Once you change the POW, both miners and exchanges will need to have to deal with it, so you would suffer from both a crisis of hashrate and liquidity.

Not really exchanges, just miners. It is true that big mining pools are often exchanges as well, due to the vast majority of coins they need to sell and the ease of setting up an exchange, but still not all exchanges at all. The point is that change in PoW really only affects blocks and not transactions, which exchanges deal with, but they use RPC calls anyway, so it is just enough for them to update their client. Miners however need new mining equipment as well.

Exchanges will have to deal with it in that the network will be highly vulnerable during a PoW-change transition period. They will have to temporary increase the required confirmation count before adding incoming coins to their respective accounts, which affects liquidity. Block times may need to re-adjust over a longer period of time. Just think about how the whole BCH chaos not only affected miners, but also exchanges.

[ChromaticStar]

are bitcore dev's threatening to change the PoW algorithms?

No. They aren't even considering it, let along threatening it.

What do you mean they aren't considering it. Greg said he would if he had to here:

https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/

[achow101]

What do you mean they aren't considering it. Greg said he would if he had to here:

https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/

Where does he say that in that article? The only mention of a PoW change is a brief paragraph at the bottom without a quote from Greg that says

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.

There is no plan for a PoW change because of Segwit2x and most Core devs are not even considering it. We might have to change the PoW in the future for other reasons.

[ChromaticStar]

What do you mean they aren't considering it. Greg said he would if he had to here:

https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/

Where does he say that in that article? The only mention of a PoW change is a brief paragraph at the bottom without a quote from Greg that says

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.

There is no plan for a PoW change because of Segwit2x and most Core devs are not even considering it. We might have to change the PoW in the future for other reasons.

If that's not what he meant, what did he mean?

From the sounds of what he said, if users want the Core backed chain and miners want 2x, he said a Pow change would be done. My assumption in that situation is that the minority hash rate change would be vulnerable to a 51% attack by the majority, so a PoW change would be required to protect it.

Personally, I do think this is unlikely, so a PoW change wouldn't be necessary. I think the miners are mostly bluffing and couldn't survive unless they mined the most profitable and user dominant chain, but stranger things have happened.

All being said, we are going to see another fork and I hope the 2x chain loses.

[achow101]

From the sounds of what he said, if users want the Core backed chain and miners want 2x, he said a Pow change would be done.

That is what he meant but that is not what you said he meant earlier. However he (and many others) find that scenario very unlikely as miners would have a coin that has very few users and thus very little money to be made mining it.

My assumption in that situation is that the minority hash rate change would be vulnerable to a 51% attack by the majority, so a PoW change would be required to protect it.

Yes, it would be. However most Bitcoin Core developers aren't going to make a PoW hard fork just because the original chain has less hash rate. That would only happen if it has less hash rate and a lot of users (probably a majority of users). If the vast majority of users decided to use the 2x chain and called that Bitcoin, there won't be a PoW change done by the Core developers as most would just leave the project and stop doing Bitcoin related things.

As of now, a PoW change is not even a consideration to most Core developers as the situation that would require one is one that we find highly unlikely.

Listen to the question and answer for yourself: https://youtu.be/nSRoEeqYtJA?t=1h30m1s

[Wind_FURY]

My assumption in that situation is that the minority hash rate change would be vulnerable to a 51% attack by the majority, so a PoW change would be required to protect it.

Yes, it would be. However most Bitcoin Core developers aren't going to make a PoW hard fork just because the original chain has less hash rate. That would only happen if it has less hash rate and a lot of users (probably a majority of users). If the vast majority of users decided to use the 2x chain and called that Bitcoin, there won't be a PoW change done by the Core developers as most would just leave the project and stop doing Bitcoin related things.

As of now, a PoW change is not even a consideration to most Core developers as the situation that would require one is one that we find highly unlikely.

Listen to the question and answer for yourself: https://youtu.be/nSRoEeqYtJA?t=1h30m1s

But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users. Remember the UASF? The community spoke and the miners followed. The NYA was only a distraction and a way for the miners to save face.

If we fork to Segwit2x/btc1, I hope Core sticks around. They will be needed to fix things in 3 months' time.

[achow101]

But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users.

Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done.

[ChromaticStar]

I do suppose there is a possibility that since most 'users' don't really know or care what 2x is, many will end up on the 2x chain due to apathy. Where the users end up will to a high degree depend on which chain services such as Coinbase, Bitpay, Local Bitcoins, etc. choose to go. But for those of us who want to stay on the Core chain, I also hope Core sticks around. We don't know what is going to happen to the 2x chain. The Core chain may end up with a minority of users because of this, but I hope that doesn't mean those of us who do don't want it. There is still a big open question for services and which chain they'll back. Hopefully we'll get answers soon.

[Wind_FURY]

But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users.

Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done.

Then I believe that is where we are going. Segwit2x/btc1 might a power grab by Jeff Garzik and his group, with the backing and support of the would be Segwit2x coin's oligarchy that includes the biggest miners and the select merchants of the Silbert Accord.

Sorry if anyone disagrees but that is my impression of this whole situation.

[hv_]

But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users.

Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done.

Then I believe that is where we are going. Segwit2x/btc1 might a power grab by Jeff Garzik and his group, with the backing and support of the would be Segwit2x coin's oligarchy that includes the biggest miners and the select merchants of the Silbert Accord.

Sorry if anyone disagrees but that is my impression of this whole situation.

I think it's a bit a 'search for equilibrium' between the two extremes:  Only poor users control (LukeJr)  and  only big industry control (Google is still not here!!).

I'd say bitcoin's game theo approach is perfectly aligned  and will find the perfect Nash Equilibrium on the long run.

We see that both sides try to make it great - so it should not fail.

Extremists might drop out here ( did Google know this in advance?) but this is OK - we all need to learn the lessons bitcoin is teaching us for free.

With S2X we approaching next level.  If this fails - I'd say bitcoin cash will win.