Topic: Am I missing something or is BTU at 45% of the network hash (Read 2000 times)

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 12:51:58 PM

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes?

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

Non mining nodes aren't that important. They help propagate and relay and that's about it.

If setting up a full node isn't very expensive new mining nodes will appear.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 12:44:11 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 12:44:11 PM

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes?

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

Non mining nodes aren't that important. They help propagate and relay and that's about it.

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes?

I'm talking about all nodes. Even if you control all mining nodes it's not enough to kill a cryptocurrency, they will change their PoW algo, go PoS, do something to save their chain. But if you control all nodes, you can do whatever you want (provided that running a node is so expensive that enthusiasts won't be able to start new nodes).

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

are you talking about miners or relay only nodes?

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 12:27:18 PM

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Can't agree. Nodes are also important. If they are too few, it's possible take control over all of them (bribe, intimidate, kill their owners, kidnap their children) to shut down the network or to deploy any forks you prefer.

felipehermanns

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

I think we are close to the next closed source patch for BUg, maybe this weekend, who knows, maybe tomorrow, BUg is in conflict with its own existance.

Undecided

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 12:16:55 PM

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

IMHO you're wrong.

Nodes can only confirm (positive vote if you prefer).
Confirmation is not the same as voting.
To confirm is to give support, to vote is to decide.

Imagine there are 1,000,000 Bitcoin Core nodes and 5,000 Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And yet the transactions of Bitcoin Unlimited would work smoothly without any problem.

Now imagine that with enough computing power, consecutive empty blocks are being mined in Bitcoin Core's preferred blockchain.
Having a million nodes would not fix the problem.

Hard is hard.

Sorry if i wasn't clear. i never used the word "node". User means buyer/investor here.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 12:16:55 PM

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

IMHO you're wrong.

Nodes can only confirm (positive vote if you prefer).
Confirmation is not the same as voting.
To confirm is to give support, to vote is to decide.

Imagine there are 1,000,000 Bitcoin Core nodes and 5,000 Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And yet the transactions of Bitcoin Unlimited would work smoothly without any problem.

Now imagine that with enough computing power, consecutive empty blocks are being mined in Bitcoin Core's preferred blockchain.
Having a million nodes would not fix the problem.

Hard is hard.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

although it is slightly more compliicated than that, because
there's a bit of chicken and egg. The miners don't want
to form chains that are not valuable. they need perception
of demand and exchanges to facilitate trade.

also there is the aspect of profit: miners will spend
hash power on most profitable chain/coin to mine,
but they also know this can change quickly during
a contentious fork. iow, if there is BTCC and BTCU,
they do not know what the value will be in 24 hours
, 7 days, etc... so it is a gamble either way, and this
is new territory.. if miners choose a new rule and vote on it
then they would not do so simply to turn around and
go the other way -- they will keep mining the new coin
and see what the market does with it.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Can't agree on that.

Seem right. You help me test my theory.

If Bitcoin goes mainstream it will need blocks of size of tens of gygabytes to conduct payments of world population onchain. It means that only huge companies, such as Google, and governments will be able run full nodes, that's centralisation.

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Centralization or not depends only on the miners.
That's it: https://coin.dance/blocks/thisweek
I think the ASIC chip market will increase in efficiency and diversity.

Of course, nothing prevents payment processors such as Visa from conducting payments denominated in Bitcoin. But it would require users to keep their BTC in banks. That means users will need to trust banks, banks will have a lot of BTC at their disposal to use in fractional reserve banking. So we do need second layer solutions such as LN.

We agree.

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 10:56:39 AM

On the other hand, in my opinion Core devs are too stubborn in refusing blocksize increase. If increasing to 2MB would put an end to the civil war, I support such increase. In my opinion even 8MB blocks are still handleable for a Bitcoin enthusiast running a full node.

I also agree.

But I wish they did not raise the limit to 2MB.
This would postpone the problem.
Uncertainty would continue until the next hard-fork-week.
I hate half-solutions.
And I think the miners understand it just as they increasingly support Bitcoin Unlimited.

If this is achieved, Bitcoin's confidence and strength will be unprecedented. Wink

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

One company has taken Bitcoin's development to impose a limit on transfers per second to make its master solution necessary (and steal commissions from miners).

Can't agree on that. If Bitcoin goes mainstream it will need blocks of size of tens of gygabytes to conduct payments of world population onchain. It means that only huge companies, such as Google, and governments will be able run full nodes, that's centralisation. Of course, nothing prevents payment processors such as Visa from conducting payments denominated in Bitcoin. But it would require users to keep their BTC in banks. That means users will need to trust banks, banks will have a lot of BTC at their disposal to use in fractional reserve banking. So we do need second layer solutions such as LN.

On the other hand, in my opinion Core devs are too stubborn in refusing blocksize increase. If increasing to 2MB would put an end to the civil war, I support such increase. In my opinion even 8MB blocks are still handleable for a Bitcoin enthusiast running a full node.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

nodecounter only showing 38%.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 10:42:33 AM

So ultimately it's users who decide which chain will live.

If you mean users with the market, not with the nodes, then we agree.

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 10:42:33 AM

Although I admit, that an attack from miners can create a lot of confusion, loss of faith, market cap and so on.

One company has taken Bitcoin's development to impose a limit on transfers per second to make its master solution necessary (and steal commissions from miners).
This in my country is called corruption and is what is happening in Bitcoin.

A hard fork is only made if there is no other choice.

I would like to know better, effective and definitive solutions.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: unamis76 on March 27, 2017, 09:58:46 AM

I'm wondering if someone managed to develop "fake BU" nodes, just like someone did with XT... That can explain the recent rise in Unlimited-related hashpower.

hash power and nodes are 2 different things.

You cannot fake hashpower -- that is the whole point why PoW is so powerful.

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 10:16:15 AM

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

I do not support ETH, I do not understand why you say it. I'm learning English.

You called ETC chain 'incorrect'. Apparently you meant it's 'incorrect' from miner's point of view, ok. And English isn't my native language neither.

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

That is the only risk I see in Bitcoin.

We can only trust on the mining chip market and the miners to become more competitive.

Original chain supporters can change PoW as many times as needed. In the case attackers are really obstinate it can be many times. But after all, original (in this case it's 'original' in the sense of original economic rules) chain will be kept alive and users will have to choose which Bitcoin they prefer to accept: original or inflationary. So ultimately it's users who decide which chain will live. Although I admit, that an attack from miners can create a lot of confusion, loss of faith, market cap and so on.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

I do not support ETH, I do not understand why you say it. I'm learning English.