Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2018, 07:55:27 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network?  (Read 764 times)
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 730


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2018, 05:25:56 PM
Merited by amishmanish (1)
 #81


@pebwindkraft, sorry, you were responding to a plagiarist who copied one of my old posts (and also a post by bob123), as reported by BitCryptex.

Wherefore ideas such as Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA) (blogged, reblogged, discussed on this forum—theymos immediately pointed out one obvious problem).



Replying to you, with corrected attribution:

Wherefore ideas such as Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA) (blogged, reblogged, discussed on this forum—theymos immediately pointed out one obvious problem).
We have sidechains/drivechains/Alpha Elements, where new concepts can be tested. I wouldn't expect something being "the right thing" from the very beginning, but the more development we have, the better it secures bitcoin future. And everything which looks at things that are more than low-level increase of blocksize or amount of coins should benefit future work.
There are many people worried about miner centralization(three countries: Canada, Island and China...), unhappy situation with ASIC miners and BCH support, and possibly growing size of blockchain... And then we learned, hard forkes are probably a "no-go". Further development is necessary.
So if UASF inspired hardforks are a no-go for MR POWA (wow, what a combination of buzz words!) is not visible, we should encourage ongoing research from many areas, and not only Altcoins, also sidechains can be used.

First, I wish to highlight my critical next sentence, which you cut—here in boldface:

I do not endorse that proposal; I think it’s interesting, but I have no desire to see collateral damage made of all the fine folks who invested their lives’ savings in SHA-256 hardware, and swore they would mine Bitcoin or nothing.

Sidechains/drivechains/etc. which you mention are irrelevant to concepts such as the MR POWA proposal—or total POW change.  These are aptly described as “nuclear options” for the main chain, in case certain ill-intended large centralized miners become an existential threat to Bitcoin.  But nuclear war is not a desirable prospect; it always has collateral damage, and it could be MAD.  Consider that in recent months, certain evil miners have tried to seriously compromise Bitcoin—and they failed, because other miners kept their own ASICs mining Bitcoin, and the network is much more resilient than some people expected.

I want to see commodity SHA-256 ASICs sold cheaper than GPUs, and as readily available.  I think that’s probably the best solution, long-term.  Too bad I am not a hardware guy.
Yes, in principle I agree. Economies of scale in the manufacturing environments have shown centralization. So even if we find new ASICs with independency from the evil ASIC provider of today, I would guess, that after finding a new cheap SHA256 ASIC cheaper as GPUs, we'd do the race again and find centralization of manufacturer of these new devices, and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light... Decentralization (to keep independency) is a very, very hard topic. Economically and especially at sociological level...

Imagine you could get ten million devices each doing a modest 800 GH/s out on store shelves at a moderate price—made plug-and-play, and advertised as the hot new thing.  Just make sure the thing runs quietly, and has sleek industrial design.  Congratulations, you just added 8 EH/s—somewhere around (waves hands) doubling the global hashrate, with half of the global hashrate now spread amongst computer enthusiasts, gadget fetishists, people who want a show-off conversation piece, finance people, maybe even gamers (many of whom have a gadget fetish, and want to show off to their friends).

I know that there have been previous attempts to create something along these lines.  What is needed is for a well-established, competently managed Bitcoin company with in-house brains and leadership who cares about Bitcoin to take a serious interest in making hardware happen for miner decentralization.  I know that the whole process from ASIC development to fabbing, to device design, to manufacturing, to (sometimes most difficult for engineers) distribution would be a challenging task.  It is not a project which some genius lone-gun could pull off by himself.

(In my dreams:  Where’s a Blockstream conspiracy when you need one?  If they could do a satellite feed, they’re adept at the sorts of contracts they would need to arrange.  They are already hated by Jihan & Co.  Go for it.)

As for this:

and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light...

Behold the power of nodes:  Invalid blocks do not exist, insofar as the blockchain is concerned.  Malicious miners can try to make all the invalid blocks they want, whether via “hidden functions” or otherwise; they’d only be wasting their electricity.  Malicious hardware manufacturers who added such “hidden functions” would be criminally defrauding their customers, but could not thus damage the Bitcoin network.  This is a non-issue.

1529351727
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529351727

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529351727
Reply with quote  #2

1529351727
Report to moderator
1529351727
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529351727

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529351727
Reply with quote  #2

1529351727
Report to moderator
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
pebwindkraft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 171


View Profile
March 05, 2018, 09:39:34 PM
 #82

Quote
@pebwindkraft, sorry, you were responding to a plagiarist who copied one of my old posts (and also a post by bob123)
And while reading I already thought, that someone mentioned this...

Quote
... concepts such as the MR POWA proposal—or total POW change.  These are aptly described as “nuclear options” for the main chain, in case certain ill-intended large centralized miners become an existential threat to Bitcoin.  
yup.

Quote
Imagine you could get ten million devices each doing a modest 800 GH/s out
I just did some math here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/64920/how-does-bitcoins-power-consumption-compare-to-other-financial-institutions-exch
We are currently at ~23mio Terahashes. The "dream" 800 GH/s fancy adapter would compete with the power of ~1.7mio Antminer S9. An Antminer does 13TH/sec. So need a times 10 better device, possibly USB, for sure fancy design, and not too expensive (250 US Dollar range?). But wouldn't the nonce calculation just explode, and even more power would be required? I currently can't see, where this ends... 

Quote
Quote
and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light...
Behold the power of nodes:  Invalid blocks do not exist, insofar as the blockchain is concerned.  Malicious miners can try to make all the invalid blocks they want, whether via “hidden functions” or otherwise; they’d only be wasting their electricity.  Malicious hardware manufacturers who added such “hidden functions” would be criminally defrauding their customers, but could not thus damage the Bitcoin network.  This is a non-issue.
gosh, what am I saying here?  Shocked I know "wrong blocks" don't make it into the network. Must have been the red wine... I don't go any further on this speculation.  Lips sealed
amishmanish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 265


Take Responsibility, Build Things, Be Kind & Share


View Profile
March 06, 2018, 03:29:32 AM
 #83


Imagine you could get ten million devices each doing a modest 800 GH/s out on store shelves at a moderate price—made plug-and-play, and advertised as the hot new thing.  Just make sure the thing runs quietly, and has sleek industrial design.  Congratulations, you just added 8 EH/s—somewhere around (waves hands) doubling the global hashrate, with half of the global hashrate now spread amongst computer enthusiasts, gadget fetishists, people who want a show-off conversation piece, finance people, maybe even gamers (many of whom have a gadget fetish, and want to show off to their friends).

I know that there have been previous attempts to create something along these lines.  What is needed is for a well-established, competently managed Bitcoin company with in-house brains and leadership who cares about Bitcoin to take a serious interest in making hardware happen for miner decentralization.  I know that the whole process from ASIC development to fabbing, to device design, to manufacturing, to (sometimes most difficult for engineers) distribution would be a challenging task.  It is not a project which some genius lone-gun could pull off by himself.

(In my dreams:  Where’s a Blockstream conspiracy when you need one?  If they could do a satellite feed, they’re adept at the sorts of contracts they would need to arrange.  They are already hated by Jihan & Co.  Go for it.)
A little clarification about Meriting you and other famous members:
You have more merit than you need but its so hard to not give it away when you post stuff like this. I like to think that I'll keep it for some of the lower ranked members who are making good posts.
Then I come across one of such posts and its like, Should I merit it? Would he feel bad if i didn't..LOL..Theymos replied to one of my posts and I couldn't bring myself to merit it thinking it'll look like adulation more than anything else.. Roll Eyes I am still trying to figure out what to think of it. You can help by letting me know what you think of it.



I vehemently agree that we need the hardware part of the ecosystem to change for decentralization. I even have a small hope that the electricity shortages for large farms would be a step in this direction as i mentioned in a post here.  The big manufacturer right now has all the incentive to sell their ASICs in huge batches rather than to individuals.

A policy in this regard would probably accomplish this in one stroke but then we'd be asking the government/ regulator to do it for us.

Elon Musk made the rockets. How hard could it be to make ASICs? Maybe we should start some sort of open hardware project for this? This is the perfect use case for our eagerly awaited Bitcoin champions.

Also, I request that you take these and similar thought threads to the Ivory tower page. You should also collect some of your better posts so anyone can take a look at them in Serious Discussion/ Ivory tower. If you allow, I'd like to do that myself. We can include other great past discussions.



██████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██

██
██████
.
///Augment Your Portfolio
██████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██

██
██████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
     ▄█▀▀▀       ▀▀▀█▄
   ▄▀                 ▀▄
  █       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄       █
 █    ▄▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▄    █
▐▌  ▄▀▄▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▄▀▄  ▐▌
█  ▐▌█ ▐█▌       ▐█▌ █▐▌  █
▐▌ █▐▌ ███  ▄▄▄  ███ ▐▌█ ▐▌
▐█ ▐▌█  ▀    ▀    ▀  █▐▌ █▌
███ ▀▄▀▄▄▄       ▄▄▄▀▄▀ ███
██▀█▄ ▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▀ ▄█▀██
▀    ▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀    ▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
Vivid

████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   WHITEPAPER  ● ● ●
FACEBOOK  TWITTER  DISCORD  REDDIT  TELEGRAM  BOUNTY
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ANN THREAD  ● ● ●
Anti-Cen
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 20

High fees = low BTC price


View Profile
March 07, 2018, 07:59:51 PM
 #84

So you are claiming bitcoin is ruled by corporations?  If that were true then wow we should let everyone know!

Well yes and I agree with him and I offer this link as proof https://blockchain.info/pools that shows eight big pools control 90% of the
network and if this so called competition between miners was true then fees would have not reached $55 per transaction because
a few miners would have had the brains not to try to hold a knife to users throats whilst asking for donations to cover the transaction costs
and as a result this crashed the price from $19k to about $10k and now we are trading sideways.

This situation is only going to get worse since the miners are going to be also running the lightning network banking hubs
I feel so yes I am letting everyone know and I even contacted the LN project manager but he was unavailable for comment and
won't even reply to emails.

ETH had a similar problem that was a result of Crypto-Kitties but the miners had a meeting and decided to remain responsible
and didn't pump fees up so no it's not a democracy and given that bankers pump and dump who's says what pockets they own.

Mining is CPU-wars and Intel, AMD like it nearly as much as big oil likes miners wasting electricity. Is this what mankind has come too.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!