Topic: Bitcoin Dev Sells 50% of his Bitcoin due to 51% threat. - page 3. (Read 6775 times)
I wonder what he will buy with all that money?
Actually I find it quite disappointing that he announced he sold half his holdings of Bitcoin. If he really believed in the project he must have known this disclosure would be very damaging. It's very appropriate, as a core Dev, to air issues of concern that need urgent attention but to air he sold 50% of his holdings was poor form
Maybe this is the only way he saw to bring attention to the fact that the dev team has no intention to bring a technical solution to the table.
Every miner including GHASH.IO should run distributed P2POOL and make it more than 70% of network hashing power to solve this problem permanently, I think that will be the major task for miners in the coming years
I also think that bitcoin foundation have the responsibility to advertise the use of P2POOL at large scale
I also think that bitcoin foundation have the responsibility to advertise the use of P2POOL at large scale
Sure sounds like Peter had most of his networth in BTC. Not a smart idea to begin with.
If you can't sustain your living expenses for at least 6 months in the worst case scenario of BTC going to $0 then you have made a grave mistake.
It's like that old saying "never keep all of your eggs in one basket".
If you can't sustain your living expenses for at least 6 months in the worst case scenario of BTC going to $0 then you have made a grave mistake.
It's like that old saying "never keep all of your eggs in one basket".
Actually I find it quite disappointing that he announced he sold half his holdings of Bitcoin. If he really believed in the project he must have known this disclosure would be very damaging. It's very appropriate, as a core Dev, to air issues of concern that need urgent attention but to air he sold 50% of his holdings was poor form
I am sorry to say but with all the news going around about BTC lately I am starting to lose a bit of faith my self.
Way too much "centralization" being forced on BTC lately and it doesn't look good.
Actually I find it quite disappointing that he announced he sold half his holdings of Bitcoin. If he really believed in the project he must have known this disclosure would be very damaging. It's very appropriate, as a core Dev, to air issues of concern that need urgent attention but to air he sold 50% of his holdings was poor form
I would like to extend a hefty "Fuck you" to Peter Todd.
This is a market failure plain and simple, not a Bitcoin failure. This will be resolved in due time, sans hard fork.
This is a market failure plain and simple, not a Bitcoin failure. This will be resolved in due time, sans hard fork.
What would you do in his place?
Personally I do not judge him for selling 50% of his coins.
I would have done the same because I have mouths to feed and bills to pay.
I will not sit around hoping that the major player will behave.
Even though I took a gamble in investing in Bitcoin, that is a gamble that I am not willing to take.
This has me interested as well
I can see the problems of hashing incentives leading to a centralized mint if the network, lower fee rates and higher transactions through mining more blocks leads people to favor some pools over others.
Such as Ghash.io
In relation to the blocks solved by miners higher discovery rates tend to equalize payouts, since I am not a dev can't really speak much on the solution other than somehow splitting the miners up by having a dual method verification system.
Such as Sha 256 and another algorithm that would work together on the ledger requiring different software to operate making a 50% attack twice as difficult, or a sidechain that does the same thing based on the Bitcoin protocol and incentivizes miners to use it as a way to earn revenue.
Simply put two reward pools one made easier than the other but in a way that promotes distribution and decentralization over centralized networks.
__
From Reddit
1) Eliminate pools.
2) Provide a way for miners to solo-mine with low variance and frequent mining payouts even with only small amounts of hashing power.
3) Get rid of ASICs.
__
Possibly
1) Split pool distribution in a way that incentivizes miners to not collect hashing power into one pool
2) Provide a way for miners to solo-mine with low variance and frequent mining payouts even with only small amounts of hashing power.
Perhaps with a sidechain implementation or a fork.
3) Removing Asics
Difficult to implement other than to change the scripting algorithm, an increased hash rate also strengthens the security of the network but other than changing distribution or scripts this is difficult to counteract. (That said more nodes are needed)
If a split and fork is supported would also implement 4 into the suggestions
__
4) Increase nodes and promote an incentive to running full nodes that keep a record of transactions occurring over the network.
As data increases and the blockchain grows running full nodes becomes more burdensome so a mechanism of reward however minor may increase the decentralized aspects redundancy is important.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/
Anyways just my thoughts on this.
That said: A 51% attack should not be as profitable as earning the revenues from Blocks so the costs of doing this outweigh the benefits of such an attack.
However A centralized mint defeats the point of decentralization so it should be addressed.
I can see the problems of hashing incentives leading to a centralized mint if the network, lower fee rates and higher transactions through mining more blocks leads people to favor some pools over others.
Such as Ghash.io
In relation to the blocks solved by miners higher discovery rates tend to equalize payouts, since I am not a dev can't really speak much on the solution other than somehow splitting the miners up by having a dual method verification system.
Such as Sha 256 and another algorithm that would work together on the ledger requiring different software to operate making a 50% attack twice as difficult, or a sidechain that does the same thing based on the Bitcoin protocol and incentivizes miners to use it as a way to earn revenue.
Simply put two reward pools one made easier than the other but in a way that promotes distribution and decentralization over centralized networks.
__
From Reddit
1) Eliminate pools.
2) Provide a way for miners to solo-mine with low variance and frequent mining payouts even with only small amounts of hashing power.
3) Get rid of ASICs.
__
Possibly
1) Split pool distribution in a way that incentivizes miners to not collect hashing power into one pool
2) Provide a way for miners to solo-mine with low variance and frequent mining payouts even with only small amounts of hashing power.
Perhaps with a sidechain implementation or a fork.
3) Removing Asics
Difficult to implement other than to change the scripting algorithm, an increased hash rate also strengthens the security of the network but other than changing distribution or scripts this is difficult to counteract. (That said more nodes are needed)
If a split and fork is supported would also implement 4 into the suggestions
__
4) Increase nodes and promote an incentive to running full nodes that keep a record of transactions occurring over the network.
As data increases and the blockchain grows running full nodes becomes more burdensome so a mechanism of reward however minor may increase the decentralized aspects redundancy is important.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/
Anyways just my thoughts on this.
That said: A 51% attack should not be as profitable as earning the revenues from Blocks so the costs of doing this outweigh the benefits of such an attack.
However A centralized mint defeats the point of decentralization so it should be addressed.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Well if a dev is willing to sell his Bitcoins on this then that means something
It means that a proof of work and consensus system with a majority network does centralize if the incentive is to generate blocks
In order to counteract that a proof of work would need to be created that promotes decentralized networks
Satoshi could come in and fix this if he comes back otherwise we will have a Dev battle which could fork the system in the worst case.
It means that a proof of work and consensus system with a majority network does centralize if the incentive is to generate blocks
In order to counteract that a proof of work would need to be created that promotes decentralized networks
Satoshi could come in and fix this if he comes back otherwise we will have a Dev battle which could fork the system in the worst case.
We view this as a huge problem. We invite all devs who agree to come join us at DigiByte. We have strategic main stream partners who believe the DigiByte brand has the most potential to be marketable above all alt coins. But we also have a solution to the centralized mining problem.
Email me at: [email protected]
You send and store data in megabytes & gigabytes. Why not send money in DigiBytes?
- Jared Tate
DigiByte Founder
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jared-tate/90/9aa/257
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkWVD8MJlS0
Email me at: [email protected]
You send and store data in megabytes & gigabytes. Why not send money in DigiBytes?
- Jared Tate
DigiByte Founder
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jared-tate/90/9aa/257
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkWVD8MJlS0
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
You would think that the foundation might spend some of that money it's built up on more programmers. I'm sure there are lots of extremely talented people in the world who would love a chance to work on a challenging project like bitcoin.
I don't even think it's about willing bodies to do the job. The ego of a control freak has stifled development for years now. I assumed when Gavin stepped down things would change but I guess I was wrong. I was hoping Wladimir would be more open to radically altering Bitcoin for the better. Especially since he's a damn good coder and the author of Dropship (effectively hacking Dropbox's servers). I guess I was wrong. Their going to sit on major necessary changes forever.
The incentives aren't necessarily aligned with the way bitcoin works in regards to the dev team, in my opinion. The devs have no real reason to implement proactive protection because they major see changes as 'risky'. The main risk is that they get blamed for implementing a change incorrectly or making a mistake, thus taking the blame personally. So they have more motivation to stick with the status quo.
I think soon enough bitcoins glacial pace will end up leading to it being just chapter one in the history of cryptocurrencies. Not the whole book.
He is entitled to his opinion, already steps are being taken to contain the 51% threat
Not saying it's not a valid concern, just that views can differ on how acute and dangerous it is
Not saying it's not a valid concern, just that views can differ on how acute and dangerous it is
Bitshares is creating DPOS (delegated POS). The delegates are voted on
voted on by whom?
-bm
By the stakeholders in the blockchain.
Peter Todd announced he has sold 50% of his Bitcoins due to the GHashIO situation, citing political biases in the system controlled by (i assume) Bitcoin core dev team and others refusing to address it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/281ftd/why_i_just_sold_50_of_my_bitcoins_ghashio/
My suggestion was this:
This is a decentralized system. But sometimes the question will arise: Who manages the project in a decentralized system? I suppose the community should be the most powerful influence in a decentralized system, yet there seems to be zero method by which the community can vote / influence the course of the code. Obviously we don't want votes on every tiny issue, but on major issues like this, yes.
Why doesn't someone institute a worldwide consensus voting system? Bitcoin is perfect for such a thing, and being the first fraud-proof voting system on earth, this would be ideal. In the end, powerful people and organizations are going to try to influence the bitcoin core code. There should be a system put in place that doesn't allow any major changes without worldwide consent. In this case, miners may be opposed to the proposal. That wont matter because they will only have so many votes.
I am new here so be gentle. This is just my idea from a newbie outsider perspective. Its strange to see everyone just sitting around throwing their hands up doing nothing. Very weird.
If change is needed. Someone do something to make it happen.
Even if you don't think its that big of a threat, im pretty sure even you would agree it wouldn't hurt to institute limitations anyways.
-B-
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/281ftd/why_i_just_sold_50_of_my_bitcoins_ghashio/
My suggestion was this:
This is a decentralized system. But sometimes the question will arise: Who manages the project in a decentralized system? I suppose the community should be the most powerful influence in a decentralized system, yet there seems to be zero method by which the community can vote / influence the course of the code. Obviously we don't want votes on every tiny issue, but on major issues like this, yes.
Why doesn't someone institute a worldwide consensus voting system? Bitcoin is perfect for such a thing, and being the first fraud-proof voting system on earth, this would be ideal. In the end, powerful people and organizations are going to try to influence the bitcoin core code. There should be a system put in place that doesn't allow any major changes without worldwide consent. In this case, miners may be opposed to the proposal. That wont matter because they will only have so many votes.
I am new here so be gentle. This is just my idea from a newbie outsider perspective. Its strange to see everyone just sitting around throwing their hands up doing nothing. Very weird.
If change is needed. Someone do something to make it happen.
Even if you don't think its that big of a threat, im pretty sure even you would agree it wouldn't hurt to institute limitations anyways.
-B-
Voting is not the answer. Participation is. Here is an open issue in which I lay out how to solve this and other thorny problems.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4079
Please share this issue widely.
Thank you.
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
You would think that the foundation might spend some of that money it's built up on more programmers. I'm sure there are lots of extremely talented people in the world who would love a chance to work on a challenging project like bitcoin.
I don't even think it's about willing bodies to do the job. The ego of a control freak has stifled development for years now. I assumed when Gavin stepped down things would change but I guess I was wrong. I was hoping Wladimir would be more open to radically altering Bitcoin for the better. Especially since he's a damn good coder and the author of Dropship (effectively hacking Dropbox's servers). I guess I was wrong. Their going to sit on major necessary changes forever.
Thing is, major changes are affecting current mining system and, sorry to break your dream, but hardware companyies are way too deep into BTC development and as long as they have paws on bitcoin devs, nothing that could affect mining will change.
Only way i can see a change is something bad happening, so that devs have no more room for bullshiting like : "community will regulate itself" or "ASIC's are protectors of network" and are forced to change stuff they should have changed LONG time ago (protection of network on software level etc.)
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
You would think that the foundation might spend some of that money it's built up on more programmers. I'm sure there are lots of extremely talented people in the world who would love a chance to work on a challenging project like bitcoin.
I don't even think it's about willing bodies to do the job. The ego of a control freak has stifled development for years now. I assumed when Gavin stepped down things would change but I guess I was wrong. I was hoping Wladimir would be more open to radically altering Bitcoin for the better. Especially since he's a damn good coder and the author of Dropship (effectively hacking Dropbox's servers). I guess I was wrong. Their going to sit on major necessary changes forever.
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
You would think that the foundation might spend some of that money it's built up on more programmers. I'm sure there are lots of extremely talented people in the world who would love a chance to work on a challenging project like bitcoin.
Bitshares is creating DPOS (delegated POS). The delegates are voted on
voted on by whom?
-bm
He probably took that money and put it into Feathercoin. Some massive buys came in today! ChooChoo
"BitFury Pulls 1PH/s of Mining Power from Ghash.io Amid Community Uproar"
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-pulls-power-ghash-community-uproar/
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-pulls-power-ghash-community-uproar/
Jump to: