BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver

[Wind_FURY]

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:
 
@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

I have always doubted them since the day they tweeted that they were "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network. I believe that it was made to fail, and planned, for Roger Ver to tell the world that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to attacks. But it does not show to be the case.

[1714056537]

1714056537

[1714056537]

1714056537

[1714056537]

1714056537

[jbreher]

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we?

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.

The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

[gembitz]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

are you retarded? BCH will NEVER be bitcoin ... never ever.

 

Bcash shills r obvious = n00b!!

[Wind_FURY]

Non-mining nodes are also very important.

Nope - you're still not getting it.

Non-mining nodes do not have any enforcement power. The only counterbalance to the community of miners, and their ability to enact whatever rules they so desire, is the threat of the economic majority abandoning the chain that the miners are making.

Many in the community advance the addle-brained notion that a count non-mining validators has some proportional relationship to economic majority. But as demonstrated above, these two figures are essentially unrelated.

But we cannot just allow the miners to centrally dictate consensus as they wish, can we?

For whatever you believe about 'can' or 'cannot', Bitcoin is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. All your wishing and canning and cannotting is not going to change the endemic design about Bitcoin and the alignment of incentives that makes the system work.

The best examples of the community and the economic majority imposing themselves against the miners are the UASF and NO2X. Tell me if I am wrong in this.

That is a rational conclusion, yes. However, a count of non-mining validators is not an indication of either 'the community' nor of the economic majority.

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter? Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

[Wind_FURY]

Here is why I think BCH is Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJw

I gave clear and consise reasons why I think that is the case.  Feel free to refute them with logic and evidence.

are you retarded? BCH will NEVER be bitcoin ... never ever.

 

Bcash shills r obvious = n00b!!

I believe Roger Ver would have more of a point if he starts delivering the message that "Bitcoin Cash is also Bitcoin".

Because no one or no company owns the word "Bitcoin". Like no one owns the word "Linux", there is Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Linux Mint, etc.

[jbreher]

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

[gembitz]

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

Ronald Ver should be charged for BITCOIN TREASON    muhahaha

[Wind_FURY]

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Then would'nt that statement be in opposition to

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

this statement? I am officially now confused. Hahaha.

Or at the very least the ability of users to run nodes should not be taken away from them?

With this, I would agree with you. But this is not a consequence of anything in your hypothetical, it is a matter of philosophy.

Ok, but in a more practical sense, running your own node does make you validate your own transactions without the need for 3rd party trust.

Good thing that the permissionless design of Bitcoin ensures that all that want to are able to operate a non-mining validator.

It is also a positive thing to scale up the network with nodes increase than decrease over time. I believe more research on low latency block propagation, efficiency, and speed is a must.

[Wind_FURY]

Everyone is welcome to join the debate and make an explanation in jbreher's place. Read my last post, saying that I am now officially confused. Haha.

It has been a discussion and debate of learning and knowledge finding. Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful posts.

[jbreher]

But what if the decentralized part of the network is so small comprising of very few nodes, and the centralized part of the network is bigger comprising of the mining cartel, the top Bitcoin merchants, and their Sybil attack nodes?

I think you need to think about what you are asking. How could 'the decentralized part' have 'very few nodes'? By definition, very few nodes would be rather centralized.

Then would'nt that statement be in opposition to

Does that not prove that number of nodes matter?

No. Not at all.

this statement? I am officially now confused. Hahaha.

::sigh::

No, the statements are not in opposition. You still seem to be under the delusion that centralization of non-mining validators (which you persist in mistakenly calling 'nodes') matters. As I have already explained to you (repeatedly...), the count of non-mining validators HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE NETWORK.

So yes - very few non-mining validators would be relative centralization of non-mining validators, but no - this condition does not matter to the network.

[pushups44]

Hmm. This is kind of interesting: BitPico bails on BTC:
 
@bitPico
Follow Follow @bitPico
More
We are no longer bullish on #bitcoin $btc & dumped all @ 8300 USD. We’ve put our farm up for sale also. Why? We no longer want to participate in the worlds most manipulated commodity. Bitcoin is now just a shit show. Good luck!

https://twitter.com/bitPico/status/1025816258414039040

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't really looked to much further into who(m) Bitpico was supposed to be.

Not a lot to go on in any sense, and seems like an odd way to get out of the game. Looks like one big circle jerk of a marketing promoting game in the end; really no substance to any of it.

That or some sort of meltdown, to delete all past posting history.

I have always doubted them since the day they tweeted that they were "attacking" the Bitcoin Cash network. I believe that it was made to fail, and planned, for Roger Ver to tell the world that Bitcoin Cash is resilient to attacks. But it does not show to be the case.

Yeah, if that tweet really was made by them, it makes them look flaky and utterly lacking in credibility, given that they claimed to be fighting to support bitcoin. In my view all markets and especially commodities are manipulated, so there is no reason to single out bitcoin for this.

[Wind_FURY]

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running? If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes? If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

[maskeffec]

So they created a core support team that wants to produce altcoins that have satoshi genesis blocks and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data, such as copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. aluminum bitcoin. but I better ignore it. There is only one bitcoin. Roger Ver tries his best to sabotage the bitcoin.com site and talk about bitcoin OG all day.

[jbreher]

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running?

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes?

As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

[Wind_FURY]

But doesn't it make the network more centralized towards the miners if there are no non-mining full validating nodes running?

No. The amount of centralization of non-mining validators is completely orthogonal to the amount of centralization of miners. The two metrics have nothing to do with each other. And to repeat (I sound like a broken record, but you keep missing this reiterated point), NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

If yes, then is it not better for users and merchants to run their own full nodes?

As stated above, No. Not yes. As for your 'then': Merchants are likely to themselves benefit from running non-mining validators. This allows them to transact trustlessly, and to monitor for double-spends. Users? Meh. Either way, NON-MINING VALIDATORS HAVE NO POWER ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK.

If again yes, then is it not also better if more non-mining full nodes are running to let the network scale out?

Again, no. As for your dependent clause, no again. It is not worse, but it is also not better. For the only entities that have any power upon the Bitcoin network -- i.e., the miners -- are almost fully interconnected, and therefore have no need for non-mining entities to relay anything on their behalf.

Ok but if non-mining full nodes have no power on the network then what was the UASF and the NO2X movements? Were they not comprised of users running non-mining full nodes?

[tokilaka]

If the cash bitcoin is a legitimate cryptocurrency, it will be able to withstand this type of attack. In that condition, I have speculated that they do not anticipate keeping any branch alive (nothing to back up ) simply uses this as a scramble for the Bcash system to prove its vulnerabilities.

[Wind_FURY]

Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?

[Wind_FURY]

In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?

Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.

Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?

[jbreher]

Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?

No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.

[jbreher]

In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?

Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.

Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?

I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.

By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.

If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will  be the result?