This is why a bunch of people are dusting off their old miners, even if it is not profitable to run them. The miners should have a say in the matter,
but they should not dictate every decision that impact all the other people using the network. I think Dash use master nodes and things are
structured in such a way to reduce the impact that miners have on the network. The master node operators also have a percentage of the say in
the decisions.... but the drawback of this is that rich people will also have a bigger say than poor people... who cannot afford to run these nodes.
Topic: [19-03-17] Explained: how Bitcoin Unlimited leads to more centralization (Read 579 times)
March 20, 2017, 11:13:04 AM
March 20, 2017, 10:35:36 AM
So this is why Antpool supported bitcoin unlimited, this really shows how much people care more of their own interest than really the whole community. If they really do get to bully all the other miners and they can take the huge blocks for themselves, for sure the biggers miner will always win over the small ones.
March 20, 2017, 09:52:36 AM
One potential nuclear deterrent is the threat of a Proof-of-Work change. While the effects would be disruptive, it would effectively negate any bullying potential. I hope it doesn't come to that, but when you have Bitcoin Unlimited tantrums with people saying they'll sue others - it pretty much tells you what you need to know.
Which is why we must do it, and "now" (i.e. as soon as a testing and roll-out schedule could permit)
The miners are fairly transparently uninterested in the value of their R&D/manufacturing/facility investment, otherwise they would not be doing this. The fact that Bitmain have spent several years developing everything they have, only in order to be as obstructive/destructive as possible should demonstrate that.
Get a grip, everyone. They're not playing nice, throwing away millions in investment just to screw up the entire value proposition of Bitcoin is proof positive of that.
PoW fork, "now". "Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"
March 20, 2017, 09:17:27 AM
Listen, Chicken Little, if you have 5% of the hash rate, your attempt to "split the network" will go nowhere. The Bitcoin.com pool has around that much of the hash rate, and their accidental 1 MB+ block had no effect on the network at all.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Their influence may be reduced, however. By putting it to the acid test they are incentivizing developers to look for ways to balance their "power". One potential nuclear deterrent is the threat of a Proof-of-Work change. While the effects would be disruptive, it would effectively negate any bullying potential. I hope it doesn't come to that, but when you have Bitcoin Unlimited tantrums with people saying they'll sue others - it pretty much tells you what you need to know.
There is an agenda being stuffed down the clients throats by "jihad" Wu, and it isn't one that they necessarily agree with, given the fact that most clients are using 0.13 - 0.14, which is an implicit backing of Segwit/Lightning.
Its sad, but I suppose we had to get to this point and have some clueless asshole push and push until we see their threats countered by effective changes to the system.
to play devils advocate , I wonder how free he is to choose his position ,,, what if you are forced to play a position you don't want to play....
March 20, 2017, 09:04:57 AM
Listen, Chicken Little, if you have 5% of the hash rate, your attempt to "split the network" will go nowhere. The Bitcoin.com pool has around that much of the hash rate, and their accidental 1 MB+ block had no effect on the network at all.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Their influence may be reduced, however. By putting it to the acid test they are incentivizing developers to look for ways to balance their "power". One potential nuclear deterrent is the threat of a Proof-of-Work change. While the effects would be disruptive, it would effectively negate any bullying potential. I hope it doesn't come to that, but when you have Bitcoin Unlimited tantrums with people saying they'll sue others - it pretty much tells you what you need to know.
There is an agenda being stuffed down the clients throats by "jihad" Wu, and it isn't one that they necessarily agree with, given the fact that most clients are using 0.13 - 0.14, which is an implicit backing of Segwit/Lightning.
Its sad, but I suppose we had to get to this point and have some clueless asshole push and push until we see their threats countered by effective changes to the system.
March 20, 2017, 05:19:02 AM
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Considering how mining is run these days this is the most annoying thing of the whole story. I would give a million different reason why not to leave such power to mining pools but hey, I'm neither a miner, nor a running a node. I'm a stupid bitcoin user who is at the mercy of this awful situation
You can also create a mining pool and mine the Core instead. Nobody can prevent you from doing that.
March 20, 2017, 02:48:11 AM
But can you for a change go and invest twice the funds and hardware to become the biggest miner or not? if you do will you be able to do exactly the same thing that BU supporters will be able to do?
Isn't hard fork a thing to validate the previous invalidated blocks and transactions?
Forking into BU before activating SegWit by soft fork to see what happens first and only then switching into BU and forking away from SW activated chain makes any sense. if you can HF now I'm sure nothing will stop you then but actually then BU will have a legit and logical excuse/reason to split away and even with the full support of the community.
I know, why not first try BU and then switch back to SW if BU fails correct?
But SW isn't trying to split/HF the network BU is so it makes all the sense in the world to first try the easy way(SW-SF)and when it failed then we'll be left with no choice other than doing the hard way(BU-HF).
Isn't hard fork a thing to validate the previous invalidated blocks and transactions?
Forking into BU before activating SegWit by soft fork to see what happens first and only then switching into BU and forking away from SW activated chain makes any sense. if you can HF now I'm sure nothing will stop you then but actually then BU will have a legit and logical excuse/reason to split away and even with the full support of the community.
I know, why not first try BU and then switch back to SW if BU fails correct?
But SW isn't trying to split/HF the network BU is so it makes all the sense in the world to first try the easy way(SW-SF)and when it failed then we'll be left with no choice other than doing the hard way(BU-HF).
March 20, 2017, 02:22:05 AM
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Considering how mining is run these days this is the most annoying thing of the whole story. I would give a million different reason why not to leave such power to mining pools but hey, I'm neither a miner, nor a running a node. I'm a stupid bitcoin user who is at the mercy of this awful situation
March 20, 2017, 01:03:31 AM
Listen, Chicken Little, if you have 5% of the hash rate, your attempt to "split the network" will go nowhere. The Bitcoin.com pool has around that much of the hash rate, and their accidental 1 MB+ block had no effect on the network at all.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
Also, if a large enough portion of the hash rate increases the max block size, the rest of the miners won't be left behind, they will jump on board.
You make it sound like miners have to choose between Core or BU, but they don't. They can use whatever software they want. They can change the rules whenever they want. They don't need the Core priesthood to bless their changes.
Finally, miners already have full control. They have the ultimate say. That is how Bitcoin works. That is how it is structured. They do the proof-of-work. They decide what is valid and what is not valid. Of course, the other full nodes have some leverage, and users have some economic influence. But in the end, whether you like it or not, miners decide.
March 19, 2017, 04:53:43 PM
This is why I as a miner vote against BU.
The problem is not about a blocksize increase to 2MB, the problem is that you essentially give miners full control over the blocksize. And, which I'm guessing Jihan knows, you give massive bullying power to the larger miners. I don't think my post even covers that correctly.
Basically, in Bitcoin Unlimited, selfish mining strategies become a lot more potent. When every miner has a different maximum acceptable blocksize, you can split the network at-will, even with just like 5% of the hashrate.
And it gets worse because the software has this 'oh I guess I lost the fight' condition in it that drags along people to the longest chain even if the blocksize is bigger than they accept.
You can start mining blocks that are too large for the miners to keep up with. Then it doesn't matter what their client says, if they can't download blocks they get pushed off the network.
Basically, BU makes it very easy for someone with as much hashrate as Jihan to become the only miner on the network. It's REALLY BAD.
Of all the proposals that big-blockers want, BU is REALLY REALLY BAD FOR THE NETWORK. If you want a hardfork blocksize increase, please consider anything other than BU. You do not want the largest miner to be able to take control over everything, and that is what BU enables.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/609kgo/you_cant_sell_a_centralized_coin_to_people_that/df4ncpt/
Iam not short sided , I realize if everything get centralized you can be shut down very easy!
This Is why BU is a very bad idea.
The problem is not about a blocksize increase to 2MB, the problem is that you essentially give miners full control over the blocksize. And, which I'm guessing Jihan knows, you give massive bullying power to the larger miners. I don't think my post even covers that correctly.
Basically, in Bitcoin Unlimited, selfish mining strategies become a lot more potent. When every miner has a different maximum acceptable blocksize, you can split the network at-will, even with just like 5% of the hashrate.
And it gets worse because the software has this 'oh I guess I lost the fight' condition in it that drags along people to the longest chain even if the blocksize is bigger than they accept.
You can start mining blocks that are too large for the miners to keep up with. Then it doesn't matter what their client says, if they can't download blocks they get pushed off the network.
Basically, BU makes it very easy for someone with as much hashrate as Jihan to become the only miner on the network. It's REALLY BAD.
Of all the proposals that big-blockers want, BU is REALLY REALLY BAD FOR THE NETWORK. If you want a hardfork blocksize increase, please consider anything other than BU. You do not want the largest miner to be able to take control over everything, and that is what BU enables.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/609kgo/you_cant_sell_a_centralized_coin_to_people_that/df4ncpt/
Iam not short sided , I realize if everything get centralized you can be shut down very easy!
This Is why BU is a very bad idea.
Jump to: