Topic: BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver (Read 1175 times)
we all someday risk in our lives
I just found out these guys deleted all of their tweets and basically ragequited Mike Hernia style on Bitcoin, so the spam attack on Bcash never happened. Three possible scenarios:
1) They were paid by Roger Ver to ragequit. This made BCash dodge the bullet of being exposed, while using Bitpico's twitter clout to throw a bit more hate in "Bitcoin Core".
2) They were never going to do it. Since day one this was the planned outcome. Possibly bribed by Ver and co. They will come back as Bcash supporters (also compatible with 1))
3) They really did quit because the fucktards weren't able to sustain the bear market and got exposed as weak hands. They were counting on higher prices to fund the hashrate for the attack, miscalculated and ended up in loses not being able to do it, which made them ragequit.
1) They were paid by Roger Ver to ragequit. This made BCash dodge the bullet of being exposed, while using Bitpico's twitter clout to throw a bit more hate in "Bitcoin Core".
2) They were never going to do it. Since day one this was the planned outcome. Possibly bribed by Ver and co. They will come back as Bcash supporters (also compatible with 1))
3) They really did quit because the fucktards weren't able to sustain the bear market and got exposed as weak hands. They were counting on higher prices to fund the hashrate for the attack, miscalculated and ended up in loses not being able to do it, which made them ragequit.
I do not care, and "they" should be made aware that we will not accept anything they say as the "truth" just because they said it. But, I know I can be wrong but his ideas can also be wrong, or we might or could be both right.
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
But if no one ran non-mining nodes, the network would be centralized towards only the miners that the economic majority would follow. Would that be an incorrect statement?
You're arguing with a brick wall. If this guy isn't Craig Wright its someone desperately trying to get anybody to take him seriously.
Upon further research, turns out that there is actual discrepancies between Roger Ver and Craig Stephen Wright.
So much for that Corean 'buhbut BCH is centralized' canard.
It matters little if there are different competing clients, if at the end of the day the hashrate is just controlled by one guy, along with most nodes, and may it get actually used at-scale, the people running nodes (that are actually people and not Amazon botnets in china) would be kicked out from the network quickly.
Also from BCH's camp they often say BTC is centralized because "Core" dictates everything, and point at how they have different competing clients, when in Bitcoin you have a big array of other clients to choose from too. No one is aiming a gun at people to run Core as the most used client, they choose to.
If Segwit as a soft fork, to kill AsicBoost was desired by the Bitcoin Cash's economic majority, would Bitmain and Jihan Wu respect it and activate it immediately?
It is -- I will just state it -- stupid to ask me this question. Ask Jihan. He is the only one that can accurately answer this question.
Oh I believe we already saw the real answer to that in practice in the past. Haha.
Quote
But again, your rhetorical is ludicrous. BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
That is another argument altogether. But I respect your opinion, though if it is biased.
Quote
Quote
I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
It was not as convincing as the demonstration of the UASF. Sorry.
Quote
Quote
Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
But if no one ran non-mining nodes, the network would be centralized towards only the miners that the economic majority would follow. Would that be an incorrect statement?
also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.
All the usual places. Here's one: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h
Quote
If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.
i know the "accusations", but being an actual vulnerability is something else. Quote
For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx.
you use the wrong term (revert) here whereas you should have said hard fork. and with that clarification it is not a SegWit-introduced vulnerability, it is a bitcoin vulnerability. miners can hard fork to any new chain they wanted and have the ability to spend any transaction output they want.
i know the words "anyonecanspend" sounds scary but in truth it is just what people are calling the new outputs. if you think miners can just flip a switch and "revert" to anything they want then you should not be trusting bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency that is build based on its technology (litecoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, ...) at all because miners can "revert" to anything they want. they can revert to prior P2SH and spend any output with a script in it, they can make 0x6a (OP_Return) outputs spendable and a lot more.
but in reality it won't happen, simply because when hard forking you need people to follow your fork otherwise it will be an altcoin. who would follow a chain that made their money spendable by others?
is anyone watching the BCH "stress test"?
it is supposed to start in 8 hours but it seems like they started it about 10+ hours ago with some spams which could produce 1 ~8 MB blocks as far as i can tell, interestingly nothing higher since BCH has 32 MB blocks.
interested to see some analysis of this process, also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.
it is supposed to start in 8 hours but it seems like they started it about 10+ hours ago with some spams which could produce 1 ~8 MB blocks as far as i can tell, interestingly nothing higher since BCH has 32 MB blocks.
interested to see some analysis of this process, also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.
which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
All the usual places. Here's one: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h
Quote
i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?
If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening.
For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork.
And no. Lack of capitalization upon a security vulnerability does not invalidate the vulnerability.
is anyone watching the BCH "stress test"?
it is supposed to start in 8 hours but it seems like they started it about 10+ hours ago with some spams which could produce 1 ~8 MB blocks as far as i can tell, interestingly nothing higher since BCH has 32 MB blocks.
interested to see some analysis of this process, also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.
i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?
it is supposed to start in 8 hours but it seems like they started it about 10+ hours ago with some spams which could produce 1 ~8 MB blocks as far as i can tell, interestingly nothing higher since BCH has 32 MB blocks.
interested to see some analysis of this process, also if anyone knows any source that can show you block propagation and verification times.
which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year?
Upon further research, turns out that there is actual discrepancies between Roger Ver and Craig Stephen Wright.
So much for that Corean 'buhbut BCH is centralized' canard.
Upon further research, turns out that there is actual discrepancies between Roger Ver and Craig Stephen Wright. This has many rammifications, including how these big twitter megaphones aren't no longer shouting for the same fork.
Craig will create Bitcoin SV client, and Roger Ver apparently is done with Craig and his nChain stuff, meaning that Ver will support Bitcoin ABC.
If Jihan also supports ABC, it means that Jihan will mine this fork while Craig's miners will point to Bitcoin SV.
The fun part is that due the changed EDA there is no "blockchain death spiral" of sorts, which means all these forks will keep on going, so Bitcoin Cash will have a ton of diluted forkchains as time goes on.
Big clusterfuck ahead for cashiers.
Craig will create Bitcoin SV client, and Roger Ver apparently is done with Craig and his nChain stuff, meaning that Ver will support Bitcoin ABC.
If Jihan also supports ABC, it means that Jihan will mine this fork while Craig's miners will point to Bitcoin SV.
The fun part is that due the changed EDA there is no "blockchain death spiral" of sorts, which means all these forks will keep on going, so Bitcoin Cash will have a ton of diluted forkchains as time goes on.
Big clusterfuck ahead for cashiers.
If Segwit as a soft fork, to kill AsicBoost was desired by the Bitcoin Cash's economic majority, would Bitmain and Jihan Wu respect it and activate it immediately?
It is -- I will just state it -- stupid to ask me this question. Ask Jihan. He is the only one that can accurately answer this question.
But again, your rhetorical is ludicrous. BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities.
Quote
I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter.
You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
Quote
Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?
Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time.
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.
But it is already common knowledge that there is a cartelization or centralization in Bitcoin mining, and Jihan Wu controls the largest hash rate.
Depends upon how one interprets the figures. ATM, Coingeek is the largest BCH mining pool. Jihan seems committed also to supporting the mining of BTC.
That would be the "safe" answer. But miner centralization is already common knowledge.
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.
By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.
If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result?
Yes it will die because they are only a small part of the network. They will be forced to follow Jihan Wu or become irrelevant. But what if Cobra's #UANF has gained the momentum like the UASF and NO2X? Wouldn't that show that non-mining node numbers also matter?
No, it would not. What it would show is that the miners respect their interpretation of the desires of the economic majority.
If Segwit as a soft fork, to kill AsicBoost was desired by the Bitcoin Cash's economic majority, would Bitmain and Jihan Wu respect it and activate it immediately?
I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter. Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.
But it is already common knowledge that there is a cartelization or centralization in Bitcoin mining, and Jihan Wu controls the largest hash rate.
Depends upon how one interprets the figures. ATM, Coingeek is the largest BCH mining pool. Jihan seems committed also to supporting the mining of BTC. If he redirected his hashpower to BCH, it may swing the balance, and may not. It may also invoke a catastrophic crash in hashpower on the BTC chain -- one that BTC may never recover from, as BTC has no ability to retarget difficulty due to step-function changes in hashpower.
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.
By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.
If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result?
Yes it will die because they are only a small part of the network. They will be forced to follow Jihan Wu or become irrelevant. But what if Cobra's #UANF has gained the momentum like the UASF and NO2X? Wouldn't that show that non-mining node numbers also matter?
No, it would not. What it would show is that the miners respect their interpretation of the desires of the economic majority.
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.
But it is already common knowledge that there is a cartelization or centralization in Bitcoin mining, and Jihan Wu controls the largest hash rate.
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.
By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.
If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result?
Yes it will die because they are only a small part of the network. They will be forced to follow Jihan Wu or become irrelevant. But what if Cobra's #UANF has gained the momentum like the UASF and NO2X? Wouldn't that show that non-mining node numbers also matter?
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.
By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.
If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result?
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
If the cash bitcoin is a legitimate cryptocurrency, it will be able to withstand this type of attack. In that condition, I have speculated that they do not anticipate keeping any branch alive (nothing to back up ) simply uses this as a scramble for the Bcash system to prove its vulnerabilities.