This is more likely an unnecessary stir of drama. Honestly, changing the algorithm means putting oneself in hot waters. This will make the system volatile and the security will be at risk too. At the same time, every single pool and blockchains will be affected by it too. Bitcoin Cash will get affected too.
Topic: Bitmain edging close to 51% (Read 288 times)
Yes, the importance of running full, non-mining, validating nodes which some Bitcoin Cash people say "do not matter".
the importance of realising legacy nodes are not full validation nodes. and so you can argue all you like about backward compatibility. but code is code rules are rules and the current dataset of the blockchain is NOT in a format that is compatible with legacy nodes. and so needs bridging nodes to filter/translate th data into pidgeon english to an acceptabl level that legacy nodes ignore the issues. but then th data legacy nodes then hold cant be relayed out as part of the whole network.
What are these "bridging nodes" you keep repeating? Do you mean the regular Segwit nodes that "talk" to the non-Segwit nodes that can "talk" in the old protocol they know? I am confused. If you can point your readers to a Github repository of the "bridging nodes" that would be good. Thanks.
Quote
also you do realise that both ver and craig wright are not devs.. so while i shout out DEV problems. you continue to want to just scream social drama about faces that dont control the code..
take a step back from the social drama of the kardashians.
take a step back from the social drama of the kardashians.
The "drama" that they want to continue by using propaganda. Roger Ver and Craig Wright should be thrown out of the Bitcoin Cash community, and the developers should try to make the coin better on its own technical merit. Do you agree?
Quote
lastly. if a 51% attack was going to cause change. then how come segwit didnt defacto change at 51%
(because it needs nodes to accept a pool offering a different format)
(because it needs nodes to accept a pool offering a different format)
What 51% "attack" do you mean?
That's a very interesting post. One of the major Bitcoin mining site, Bitmain has reached 42% of the total blocks which is close to 51%. It is operated by ASIC miners who are able to generate Bitcoin at a faster rate than GPU.
I don't really understand mining politics but why does everyone mine for Bitmain?
I'd like to see their percentage of hash power drop somewhat, as the point of bitcoin is to be a decentralized currency. Also, while from a game theory perspective they are unlikely to attack the network, it would be nice if that possibility were erased completely.
I'm looking up Bitmain, is this an ASIC company that mines Bitcoin? So they create the ASICs and use it themselves?
They do both. They're essentially the only (good) ASIC manufacturer for Bitcoin at the moment, and they also run mining farms and are involved with mining pools. A good chunk of their business revolve around Bitcoin, so there's no way they're going to harm Bitcoin by going for 51% of the hashrate. It has to be noted that 51% only makes attacks possible, not necessarily probable.
Either way, I'd say that throttling their hashrate output would still be a better business move than scaring away Bitcoin users. They probably deserve the negative image that most in the crypto world has of them, but they're still a business that aims to profit at the end of the day.
As far as i know they are good. If they want to doing well in this market they need to maintain their performance. Now wait and see how they can fulfill investors demand.
Yes, the importance of running full, non-mining, validating nodes which some Bitcoin Cash people say "do not matter".
the importance of realising legacy nodes are not full validation nodes. and so you can argue all you like about backward compatibility. but code is code rules are rules and the current dataset of the blockchain is NOT in a format that is compatible with legacy nodes. and so needs bridging nodes to filter/translate th data into pidgeon english to an acceptabl level that legacy nodes ignore the issues. but then th data legacy nodes then hold cant be relayed out as part of the whole network.
also you do realise that both ver and craig wright are not devs.. so while i shout out DEV problems. you continue to want to just scream social drama about faces that dont control the code..
take a step back from the social drama of the kardashians.
lastly. if a 51% attack was going to cause change. then how come segwit didnt defacto change at 51%
(because it needs nodes to accept a pool offering a different format)
p.s stop with the foolish drama of if someone points out an issue against core then you must treat them as cashers..
no
pointing out an issue with core is trying to get the community to realise something that needs fixing to make btc better.
if that involves diluting core out and have it as separate nodes of separate teams all working on one network and all having to publicly cone to a unitd consensus by actually listening to the communities diverse desires and find some considerations and compromises until a united consensus can be established.
rather than continuing with this one team is king and anyone saying a bad word against them is evil attacker minset.. is not helping bitcoin. its turning bitcoin into a centralised monarchy
lastly people have been screaming about bitcoin nearing 51% ever since 2014
I'm looking up Bitmain, is this an ASIC company that mines Bitcoin? So they create the ASICs and use it themselves?
more social drama to cause community to ruin bitcoin security by changing the mining algo... (facepalm)
funny part is to achieve changing the algo. core would need to do yet another 35% mandatory attack, threatening the network with IP bans and block rejections.. oh but there will be baseball caps available again. (facepalm)
remember this though folks.
one positive lesson about the august 2017 mandatory split.
if blocks dont fit the rules of the network it doesnt matter what they produce, they will get rejected.
the fear is not that a pool can just magic money up 50 billion bitcoins simply by having enough hashrate. their blocks will gt rejjected in 2 seconds no matter what the hashrate is.
the only thing that will happen is that if a pool with large majority does something that does not fit the rules. then the blocks get rejected and the only result is slower block solutions frrom the remaining pools.
changing the algo is DEFINETLY going to cause not only a risk to security but also delays in block solutions from all pools because ALL pools use the same algo.
so a change in algo affects EVERY POOL and will delay EVERY BLOCK
dont let yourself get fed into the fud of what pools can do to blocks(data). and realise the blocks would get rejected if they try..
wise up to the reality that if the network(CODE) changes. it affects everyone
funny part is to achieve changing the algo. core would need to do yet another 35% mandatory attack, threatening the network with IP bans and block rejections.. oh but there will be baseball caps available again. (facepalm)
remember this though folks.
one positive lesson about the august 2017 mandatory split.
if blocks dont fit the rules of the network it doesnt matter what they produce, they will get rejected.
the fear is not that a pool can just magic money up 50 billion bitcoins simply by having enough hashrate. their blocks will gt rejjected in 2 seconds no matter what the hashrate is.
the only thing that will happen is that if a pool with large majority does something that does not fit the rules. then the blocks get rejected and the only result is slower block solutions frrom the remaining pools.
changing the algo is DEFINETLY going to cause not only a risk to security but also delays in block solutions from all pools because ALL pools use the same algo.
so a change in algo affects EVERY POOL and will delay EVERY BLOCK
dont let yourself get fed into the fud of what pools can do to blocks(data). and realise the blocks would get rejected if they try..
wise up to the reality that if the network(CODE) changes. it affects everyone
Baseball caps? sign me up pls
I've really researched the 51% problem. What I wonder, does it automatically create a problem, or does Bitmain have to take advantage of something for it to be a problem.
government can't take down the market, banks neither.
Bitmain can. Bitmain control the market. Bitmain control everything...
Bitmain can. Bitmain control the market. Bitmain control everything...
Based on crypto market there are many ideas are coming through the many websites and forums but this not a good idea I think because its not so easy and this algorithm is really unnecessary for user it will cause of risk so this so we should think another idea.
I don't think that they are irresponsible, they won't perform 51% attack. They earn a lot of money on selling ASICs and mining Bitcoin. There is no point for them to increase the panic among the investors. If they actually performed that attack, it would be disastrous for our community. People would say that cryptocurrencies have failed and they would not succeed for the next few years.
Usually, BITMAIN is maxing out their hashing power everytime a new batch of their miners are created and ready for shipping. They are just taking advantage of the time remaining to stress-test these miners before shipping it out, as was the case even in the previous years. Their hashrate would surely subside once the new batch is out for shipping and the hashrate is distributed again. They will not hit the 51% as they know it will affect their business model and the miners wouldn't be sold since everyone had already pulled out their assets through such a dumb move.
Well its not a single entity like Bitmain having all that hash power but many miners combined who are making up the 51%. If Bitmain gets evil and tries to perform a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network than all the miners can pull out their hash power from it and Bitmain would be left with not much power to do anything.
Accurately speaking, Bitmain controls nearly 45% of total btc hashing power. Still a big number. But I think there is nothing to worry about a 51% attack. Bitmain is a reputed company and let's hope that they won't do that. Moreover Bitmain made 3-4billion$ from revenue last year, doing a 51% attack will end their business.
more social drama to cause community to ruin bitcoin security by changing the mining algo... (facepalm)
apart from the security risks, changing the algorithm (based on the proposals that i have seen so far) will not solve anything at all. it will not even change anything or even put a dent in the power that companies such as bitmain has!
the only thing that it does is to fuck with bitcoin, its price and any small or new business (like the Japanese Internet Giants) that have just entered ASIC manufacturing because bitmain has already made their profit and if the change happens they simply start creating new ASICs and make a lot more profit than before because they start selling more since the old ASICs would be obsolete and miners have to buy new ASICs. so in the end that change will just make bitmain bigger.
I'd like to contest this:
Bitmain didn't report anything. If you follow the link in the article, it says that number was estimated by a third party research firm. I'm not discrediting the article, I just want to point out that it has a tendency to exaggerate.
Either way, Bitmain won't dare to cross that threshold and would likely relent if they get close to the number. They probably have the most to lose out of any entity should a 51% attack be possible.
Quote
Bitmain Technologies Ltd. — the Beijing based Bitcoin mining company reported astonishing profits in 2017, taking in between $3 and $4 billion.
Bitmain didn't report anything. If you follow the link in the article, it says that number was estimated by a third party research firm. I'm not discrediting the article, I just want to point out that it has a tendency to exaggerate.
Either way, Bitmain won't dare to cross that threshold and would likely relent if they get close to the number. They probably have the most to lose out of any entity should a 51% attack be possible.
Jump to: