Topic: Bitmain announces plan to create altcoin if BIP148 succeeds - page 3. (Read 16962 times)

Hahaaha, thats a good one. dash is a mesh and bitcoin is the best crypto and surely does not need SW at all. But some hijackers did a lot of technobubble and overnegineerings and might pay the price for now.

Bitcoin, Forks, SegWit, DASH, Litecoin & What's Exciting in Crypto - Adam Meister:

https://youtu.be/yBBgQ3IwYqo

The Dash Digital Cash does not need a SegWit, a true cryptocurrency does not need a SegWit!

You are apparently confusing entirely different notions

Miners don't make up the economic majority, they make up the the most of hashrate, but these are entirely different things. In fact, most of hash power belongs to a dozen miners, and the number of real persons controlling this power may be even less than that. Regarding whether a hard fork which has the largest percentage of hashrate will be an altcoin (or not), this ultimately depends on whether it is accepted or rejected by the major exchanges. If it is not, all the hash power in the world will be irrelevant since exchanges represent nowadays what is called economic majority (in case of Bitcoin)

I read through, or at least skimmed by the end, the whole thread, and for the most part don't feel the need to engage in any of this. But I do want to comment on this from page 10 which no one else seemed to pick up on:


So far as I see, this tweet says basically exactly that: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/872422714237177856

Before I'm attacked for being an altcoiner and not posting on this forum much, let me just point out that I really don't care what Back's opinion is and am making no argument on either side in this thread; I'm just linking to his tweet on that topic since the factual question of what he said or didn't was raised.

And with that, I'll see myself out.

With a large precentage of the hashrate attributed to the a certain fork proposal, I don't think that it'd be safe to assume that this fork would create an altcoin. It'd be a huge risk for other miners to actually NOT follow both because of losing money due to the retarget slowing down but most importantly because of the economic majority having shown its preference. The coin supported by the economic minority would most likely end up being deprecated at best.

Hmm well if UAHF happened and magically we got bigger blocks without much pain, I would be fine with it. Given the tension building for August 1, I don't think UAHF is the best way forward. It's too rushed, and an unnecessary challenge to UASF. Then again, if they can get the code together before August 1, maybe UASF is a perfect excuse to ram through a bigger blocks hard fork.

Obviously lukejr and his minions no longer have any qualms about hard forking and/or possibly wrecking bitcoin, so maybe that's how things will happen going forward...

I haven't had time to thoroughly analyze the proposals, but my opinion is that everybody is bluffing, and no protocol changes will get forced onto the network.

Good idea for you to sell, debate and discussion is what leads to advancement and security here, rushed changes with a financial program lead to terrible results.

In fact, I never claimed to be an "expert" in mining

On the other hand, you don't have to be a cow to distinguish between soar milk and fresh milk. My point is rather simple, though, and it is pretty independent or agnostic (so to speak) of any technical details about "how mining fundamentally works" (if that was your point). I know how money works and how it should work (let's assume that Bitcoin aims to be that, after all). And mining as it is today gets right in the way of the "money" thing. Basically, money should make life easier, not heavier, and mining (Bitcoin mining), fundamentally, should work in that direction, not in the opposite, as is the case right now (with insanely high fees and incredibly slow confirmations). I guess this is as fundamental as it could ever get

What I have noticed while learning to trade is that you will have supporters of all kinds backing many crappy projects so Bitmain will also have it's group of shills who will support whatever sha coin it produces. Many decent projects get left behind and trashy ones come to the forefront and are pumped by supporters. I am worried about the uncertain future of Bitcoin at this point and am hoping that the altcoin markets do not implode because of the Bitcoin problems.

Good information in this thread, what that company is trying to do is to create a new altcoin to sell a lot of mining equipment for another six or seven years, it's not hard to imagine, but people will not accept that because is an completely centralized thing.

Well, the asicboost patent has been filed in 2014 with probable priority claim in 2013. 
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en

It is not bitmain that owns it.  It is a good improvement (at least in principle) of the hash calculation in the PoW scheme of bitcoin, in the same way that the standard algorithm already avoids recalculations, in the same way that introducing GPU outperformed CPU, and then ASICS outperformed GPU.  It improves the ratio of proof of work over economic cost like all those other techniques did.

I don't see how bitmain, somewhat unfairly "has a monopoly on asicboost tech".   What is fundamentally problematic, is that a patent exists, but that's in the fundamental problematic nature of proof of work itself.  Proof of work being essentially a relationship between cryptographic results (small hash values), and a presumed necessary waste of economic resources, if there are legal ways to protect better relationships between proof of work (cryptographic result) and actual economic waste, there is of course a huge advantage for those legally allowed to do so.  But that is the fundamental nature of intellectual property: the one detaining the rights, has "unfair advantage" over those legally forbidden to use it.
If a system wants to base its decentralized aspect on such a thing, like bitcoin, it is simply badly designed, that's all.
 

Maybe you should? It wasn't long ago that you told me you had no idea why a certain account was in the default trust group. And you can't seriously believe that the ranking system hasn't suffered the forum software equivalent of a sybil attack, not to mention the high rankers that just sell their accounts.

So, tell us again Lauda about how high quality and meaningful the information is going to get collected using this great poll thread idea

Thanks but would you risk 50% of your funds.. don't you think leaving it untok Aug 1 is playing with fire. I mean yes btc was risky but I can deal with this type of risk. Now the upcoming risk is ridiculously risky to play with tens or 100s of thousands  of dollars. Yes discussion is what makes consensus but geeez this sounds like it will turn into 10year discussion with no end in site is a now a stubborn debate with neither side bending.  How is btc meant to function like this. Why on earth wasn't this taken care of when btc was at 2 dollars or even 200 ..now we are playing with crazy amounts of dollars..  investors is what drives btc if we scare them they will pull out and news will spread and btc will crash like we have never seen. And now the world will see the civil war going on and never trust it. That's sad and makes me irritated that grown adults with their head screwed in properly cannot agree with something. The risks of not agreeing I think are worse than doing. If you have calculations that tell you a tsunami is on the way. I doubt you will sit there and wait for it to come.and break  down your house.. you will strengthen the house before this happens.  Same with btc... it's obvious transactions are slowing down as more and more people get in... is it better to wait until it's ridiculously unusable or fix. I think many ppl want to fix, I may not be that technical to comprehend why people are finding.it that hard to come.to am agreement. My apologies if I sound ignorant... I just love this coin and technology I don't want to see it burn to the ground because of something which could have been fixed quite easily.

Sigh. Learn how the forum works.

I don't think we should as those are not even being considered anymore, at least not at this time.

Shills should not be allowed to vote anyways. Stop whining.

Maybe the statement as found in the OP is just a bluff. This means that BIP 148 is working.

and with this bitcoin system  will have and another manufacturer that will control a key part of bitcoin mining and gpu producers. And is much much difficult for any new bitcoin startup to competes tech companies like Nvidia, AMD, Intel.
This is the main reason why a change pow plan is danger and will bring more centralisation to bitcoin mining.

Agreed.

We must give miners a year or two so they can adjust to the new PoW system. Since ASICs get outdated in every 2-3 years or so, that wouldn't be much of a problem for them.

Antminer S5's don't worth shit now, their S9's will share the same fate sooner or later anyway.

Mining should be more decentralized and available for every bitcoin holder there is.

I wouldn't have supported a PoW change if there were any other competing ASIC manufacturers or  there wasn't any greedy fucks that didn't patent their software in an open source project but that's not the case.

But money is money and ASICs were born just because of those greed. So there will never ever be decentralized mining with ASICs because even if NVidia or AMD was building ASICs, they would have created a code like ASICB**ST themselves. The idea is about making more money, we can't blame them for hijacking the system but we could have taken measures to prevent it.

Sad thing is, the core devs didn't.

They let Jihan eat every other ASIC manufacturer by one by and now he is fat as fuck and about to eat the whole blockchain.

imo a pow change will not gain anything. As vertcoin prove a new pow is only a temporarily solution. I prefer the current game theory of asic in bitcoin ecosystem. Because Bimain products the most asic right now not meaning that is an ally with every miner in the system or that can rule them all. And if the price range keep high then for sure they will appear many more competitors.
 

From my own reading's ect I think lightning network has some vast benefits to gain but it also has its down sides as mentioned about, 

Miners need to realise they don't own bitcoin this is the problem its now a power struggle between dev's and miners which to be honest has the potential to damage the system we all love so much.

While the lightning network (in future ) could have fantastic implications for bitcoin I agree right now its just not technically possible.

We need to get past this BIP / SegShit dare I say turning point for the network then look to some serious scalability for bitcoin.

I also agree back to GPU mining! ASIC should never of taken over the world of mining in my eyes.  It put bitcoin in the hands of the few while squeezing out the many.

lighting network is the only way bitcoin or any other blockchain system to become mainstream as an everyday payment system or everyday smart contract system. Is technical impossible right now a blockchain system to have Visa, Paypal onchain volume. To do this it needs 500mb-5gb blocks. this is ridiculous for everyone to say that bitcoin can upgrade to this level onchain.
Miners must accept that the future is in sidechain payment or lighting network and for the first time to start to develop their own tech solutions around it to begin to get profit from them. Because until now every day they payed from the others work without to return anything back to the ecosystem.

Just throwing this out there but lightning network?  Anyone think this could be something to come in future?

https://youtu.be/MpfvhiqFw7A