Topic: [2019-08-08] Blockstream Reveals Massive Bitcoin Mining Facilities (Read 404 times)

Muh, miners are the evil guys for centralization...

Lol, are they running full nodes = mining nodes finally?

However, also consider what the other projects are doing on scaling their own cryptocoins. Most of the altcoins also have nothing working.

Scaling blockchains might be harder than everyone first thought or also maybe impossible.

devs are genuinely accomplished computer scientists. you're in no position to be questioning their planning when...



...all wrong. everything you've written above is incorrect


you cannot get basic facts correct, why place any importance on your badly informed pessimism



if any fork is significantly better than what it forks from, it will become the dominant fork


maybe you can't imagine the added features that a hardfork could use to outcompete it's parent chain. that doesn't mean someone else can't. this is no different to those people who say (well, complain) that "everything has already been invented", it's a form of jealousy/contempt really. you could invent things yourself. but you just don't want to. don't be a hater.

If it requires a hard fork then it's not going to happen no matter what. The only circumstances I can see one happening now is pure life or death. Anything beneath that will result in nothing but deadlock.

Hopefully upper layers will offer the opportunity to integrate anything properly promising.

You seem to be more optimistic than I am. I just get the impression that the developers are too conservative and think that we shouldn't implement things that are new because who knows what effect it will have on Bitcoin.

If you're completely honest and take off your perma bull cap, how long do you think it will take before we see taproot and Schnorr signatures implemented?

I was referring to how after nearly a decade we so far have only had SegWit and LN as scalability/upgrades. That's what I consider a poor show. Not even a block size increase. This isn't what I consider progress.

The on-chain transaction throughput is capped at ~400k transactions on average with SegWit not gaining more adoption.

People may not be realistic in the sense that they expect Bitcoin to absorb every single gimmicky characteristic of an altcoin that they deem "useful", but I don't see why it won't be able to have a feature integrated if it really adds something to Bitcoin that we don't already have and makes it even better.

The problem with most people is that they always look at what they don't have, then pretend to need features while they don't ever intend to use them. We already have a working product that people actually use. It may not be perfect, which is why there is development going on to improve it even further, but it gets the job done.

What do people actually use crypto in general for? It's to send coins back and forth between themselves and an exchange, to transact with others to settle deals, make online purchases, etc. Bitcoin does that already and with Lightning it will get the job done even better and cheaper.

A schnorr/taproot proposal exists, but it's not final yet

there's no good reason why not (there aren't even any bad reasons as of yet)



why? the taproot/schnorr upgrade is likely to be flag activated once the details are finalised (alot of the code is already written in the secp256k library, just gluing that together with Bitcoin itself is the bulk of what's needed)



Lightning/segwit are not 10 years old, what are you talking about?

It's even going to be a real challenge to get taproot and schnorr signatures implemented in Bitcoin. Bitcoin has become a store of value and a transactional layer for high value transactions.

If we at some point in the future unexpectedly see an upgrade be implemented in Bitcoin then that's great, but it's pointless to expect any significant upgrade to be implemented in the coming 12 or so months.

We're stuck with SegWit well under 50% adoption and have to hope that LN grows further, which after nearly a decade of existence is a poor show. Being a perma bull doesn't mean you should ignore this.

Nope. I can't say I've ever seen anything an alt invented being integrated into BTC. And the people who say Bitcoin can suck in innovations pioneered by alts aren't being realistic. More than a few would require a hard fork.

Alts have proven themselves to be empty hype chambers or pointless cut and pastes in the main with little to no focus on the stuff that really matters. Bitcoin has shrugged off all of the things that almost all other coins would wilt at the first sign of. And development focuses on competence, safety and sustainability before any tech noodling or 'partnerships'.

I agree with most of the above points, except this last part. If Crypto currencies continue to gain more dominance in the world of financial services and threaten fiat currencies,
central banks, states and the "invisible" powers that control them, it will be even more important to remain anonymous and decentralized, as for example the accidental "suicide"of a major crypto influencer or a takeover of a giant mining operation might have catastrophic effects on crypto markets...




Would you then say that this is the primary reason most altcoins are melting in relation to BTC for over 1.5 years now, that most innovations brought on by altcoins are implemented in a better and more reliable fashion with each BTC core update ?..

This is an interesting debate. I am working full time on blockchain projects as a programmer, and I have studied the code of many projects. Bitcoin Core is by far the most maintained.
It is true that they have gradually removed solo mining, and now you need to use a stratum based pool to mine.
They seems to be trying to shield the way to mining from the beginners and make it difficult to mine for anyone but big miners and professionals.
They seems to try to control the mining , which is a good way to avoid 51% attacks for example.

Lightning Network is an amazing work, that answers to the micro transaction speed, the block size and more at the same time. It is the digital cash in some way.
It is hard to pretend that Lightning Network has a hidden goal to destroy Bitcoin by whatever mean.

From my perspective (a developer one) Blockstream is the best thing that has happened to Bitcoin for a long time. I like every release the Bitcoin core make, and every passing years is leaving DASH, ZCASH, and all the blockchain based on pre version 0.17 from facing some sort of obsolescence.

In the geopolitical environment that we have, with countries fighting over currencies, and crypto being outlaw in many major countries, it is good to have Bitcoin backed by people with visibility and influence.
I am not naive, I know that the Bielderberg group (FED via Axxa) is investing in everything at the same time, as they are doing for the elections, so that whoever win, they are wining too.

Time will tell
 

But how open source, is open source if you are say mining 10% of the network of BTC like I believe Blockstream 'aspires' to do?

So the question becomes with code/source/programing etc, what determines the direction of updates?

Miners? (Which you are now a big player) or Open Source Adoption?

Would be sooooo tempting to 'tweak' the code in some manner, in that I did not have to replace my 'aging' miners someday, don't ya think?

Bitcoin: Power Corrupts! Maybe? (tm: Blockstream)

Brad

Blockstream is actually helping Bitcoin, they are developing interesting technologies that are solving problems with the Bitcoin blockchain and will help its customer's range of use. They are also giving a salaries to most of the Bitcoin developers.
Microsoft and Apple are financing Linux, who is complaining?

These guys again!

1. who are the alleged conspirators?
2. what is the crime they were planning?

oh, you are confused about what that word means


conspiracy:

an act wherein 2 or more persons plan to commit a criminal offence


NOT

conspiracy:

story, which is not true

really? link?


I've never heard a story about miners making secret deals to change Bitcoin development before, but you're saying that's been going on for years?

You can imagine many theoretical situations when miners would want developers to make decisions that would benefit them, even at the cost of making situation worse for users. Maybe Blockstream would never do such a thing, but still there might be a day when they will face such temptation. Maybe it will be some form of ASICboost, maybe it will be about the blocksize or LN, or even something new.

I think this is the other story that Blockstream will be remembered for, at least if there would be more nodes or even more people relying on Bitcoin satellite coverage -- and I have seen some use case potentials in areas where there are still no ISPs, where I was accessing internet only in short bursts of solar-powered sat connections.

Probably be a geek out moment for me if I one day could return and set up something small just for a node if nothing else. My own piece of vanity history;)

I don't see any problems here. I like the fact that the 5-6 exahash they added lowers the dominance of Bitmain's mining pools, and this is just a start with how I expect Blockstream to keep increasing their hashrate.

All the anti Blockstream propaganda comes from the Bcash camp-- they do not control Bitcoin development nor have they ever done so. I wish them good luck with the future contributions they have in store for Bitcoin.

I have never tried Blockstream satellite, but when I have some free time and the right equipment, I'll see how it works and have a geek-out moment. They added LN support too so I'm kinda looking forward to it.

Why would you see this as a conflict of interest? They are not getting any kind of advantage over their competition with their involvement in them funding the development. The source code for Bitcoin is Open source and everyone can scrutinize the code to see if they are adding something that would give them a unfair advantage.  

I think it is a good move to add to the decentralization of mining and also to support the hashing power and security of the technology that they working on.

I think that is what can and should be expected from a business with eye for profits. As much as I respect Blockstream for what they have done, I am glad that their 'dominance' in terms of developer commits has taken a massive dive. Most of the commits nowadays come from Chaincode Lab's developers.

I think the real bummer move from Blockstream's side was that they defended Tether while we all know how questionable their business model is. I'm pretty certain that the motivation behind that move was to protect their Liquid client.

however well intended, the same company that sponsors Bitcoin developers also mining BTC is a conflict of interest. It's a good thing they're not the only organisation sponsoring developers, but I still would prefer that this had not happened.

the BetterHash pool is a good counter balance however. Anything that helps decentralize the mining market adds to Bitcoin's strength, even if Betterhash is a modest move in that direction. This should push other pools into adopting Betterhash also.

With any luck, Blockstream will be totally incompetent or too naive to enter the mining business, and rolling out Betterhash will be all that remains of this story in the long term

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2019/08/08/blockstream-reveals-massive-bitcoin-mining-facilities-fidelity-an-early-customer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Here's an interesting one.

BlockstreamBorgAxaCore, your favourite lizards, have two giant mining facilities and two of their clients are Fidelity and Reid Hoffman. They account for about 7% of the entire hashrate at these difficulty levels.

Also planned is a mining pool that uses the Betterhash protocol which puts decisions back into the hands of miners rather than pool operators.

I had no idea they were planning this.