Defensive Nuclear Weapon - Armageddon Avoidance - Proof-of-Coinbase -poison pill

jaybny

sr. member

Activity: 410

Merit: 250

Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com

Quote from: VentMine on March 20, 2017, 10:57:41 AM

I think the major assumption here is that if BTU forks that they will attack and attempt to destroy the core chain. I think this is a bad assumption, such an attack would be very expensive on BTUs part and they would not be able to sustain it for long, considering they also have to hash on their own chain. The drop in price for both coins support my point here.

i agree.. i take it all back!

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: BTCLuke on March 20, 2017, 04:58:16 PM

Ok, seriously. WTF.

Take your own argument into advisement, man!

What I mean is that if bitcoin hard forks, you make two *different* crypto coins. If you think that you "double the coins" then you should take into account all the coins on other chains too, all altcoins.

And that's indeed fundamental. The idea of "sound money" only makes sense if that money has the monopoly on money. The idea of sound crypto money only makes sense if there is one crypto. But if the market is shared with others, then "sound money on one" doesn't make sense. Yes, if there is BTC, and BTC-U, there are 21 million BTC, and 21 million BTC-U. But there are also 7 million DASH, 90 million ETH, 14 million XMR, and so on. If you are worried about the doubling of bitcoin, you should also consider all other crypto.
Bitcoin is not fundamentally different. It is a crypto like any other. It just was there first, and that gives the bitcoin brand name a huge advantage.

BTCLuke

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 508

My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck

Quote from: dinofelis on March 20, 2017, 09:10:34 AM

3) the bitcoin brand name is all bitcoin still has. "being an alt coin" is a horrible idea for bitcoiners.

Agreed completely. BU wants the brand, because there is 8 years of network effects behind it, that transfer when it does.

Quote from: dinofelis on March 20, 2017, 09:10:34 AM

That was already the case when the first altcoin was made.

Ok, seriously. WTF.

Take your own argument into advisement, man!

VentMine

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 105

I think the major assumption here is that if BTU forks that they will attack and attempt to destroy the core chain. I think this is a bad assumption, such an attack would be very expensive on BTUs part and they would not be able to sustain it for long, considering they also have to hash on their own chain. The drop in price for both coins support my point here.

Posts like this are a form of fear mongering against forking. What's wrong with forking? It's a natural element that lets the community move on when there's a contentious decision. The market will decide which chain has value. Changing the PoW algo is a really dumb idea, you are taking away my ability as a miner to support your chain and taking away my right to vote. In a way, it's a centralization tactic.

You should think of forking like mutation, good mutations lead to evolution, bad mutations lead to cancer. Which one will BTU be? Let the market decide and stop giving into fear.

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 639

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

OP suggestion is ludicrous ~ unless we are being invaded by mongols :-D

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: testerx on March 19, 2017, 06:49:21 PM

Reading this garbage gives me a headache, I'm not sure the OP has any idea how Bitcoin or hard forks even work based on the ridiculousness of their suggestion.

If it hard forks it hard forks, at this point I think it might be the best thing for all involved-we'll get rid of the uncertainty and then the two chains can fight it out to see which one is the one that is truly supported. And all current bitcoin holders will get to have bitcoin on both chains as long as replay protection is implemented. Then over time it'll sort itself out much like how Ethereum's hard fork was sorted out. Frankly all the fighting and attacks have lead us to a point where we might as well just fork and see which implementation really has the support of people.

Indeed, that would be the simplest thing to do, except for a few reasons:

1) those capable of forking (miners) don't really want to fork. BU is bluff to keep segwit away.

2) the nasty clunky old-fashioned 2000 block difficulty adaptation in bitcoin. Unless the fork changes that too, you cannot afford to have a serious fall in hash rate. If you are the minority, with, say, 20% of miners on your side, each block will take 50 minutes instead of 10 minutes (5 times less hash rate for same difficulty that gave 10 minutes before), and you will have to do this for 2 - 3 months before difficulty is adapted: by that time, your chain is dead, customers voting for it or not in the market: you have no room on the chain, and the whole point was to have bigger blocks ! If you have only 10% of the miners, you will have a block every 2 hours, and it will take half a year to change that.

3) the bitcoin brand name is all bitcoin still has. "being an alt coin" is a horrible idea for bitcoiners.

Quote

The only real downside is that the whole "21 million" bitcoin limit is going to go out the window if people see that we can end up creating multiple chains.

That was already the case when the first altcoin was made. It is a stupid idea that sold very well though. If one would have kept the block chain rewards constant, with constant additive, and diminishing relative inflation, all of this fee war wouldn't have happened.

BTCLuke

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 508

My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck

Does the OP understand that for rules to be in effect, the majority has to adopt them FIRST?

You can't just make up a rule like "If you're a miner that does X, your get no bitcoins" and expect it to just automatically be valid... Miners have to vote to include it first!

If this wasn't the case, Segwit would be in effect already.

testerx

hero member

Activity: 608

Merit: 500

Reading this garbage gives me a headache, I'm not sure the OP has any idea how Bitcoin or hard forks even work based on the ridiculousness of their suggestion.

If it hard forks it hard forks, at this point I think it might be the best thing for all involved-we'll get rid of the uncertainty and then the two chains can fight it out to see which one is the one that is truly supported. And all current bitcoin holders will get to have bitcoin on both chains as long as replay protection is implemented. Then over time it'll sort itself out much like how Ethereum's hard fork was sorted out. Frankly all the fighting and attacks have lead us to a point where we might as well just fork and see which implementation really has the support of people.

The only real downside is that the whole "21 million" bitcoin limit is going to go out the window if people see that we can end up creating multiple chains.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

* Calls thread Armageddon Avoidance

** goes on to describe Armageddon.

Go Bitcoin.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 19, 2017, 01:36:52 PM

51 is the minimum obviously. Circular reasoning again though w changing to POS. It wont just change to POS unless theres big consensus which is the problem youre trying to solve to begin with. Why you cannot see that, I dont know.

Indeed, totally circular reasoning. "if those majority dickheads fork off, and they don't have a majority, it will blow in their face".

It would in fact be fun to make a PoS fork of bitcoin. It would most probably be listed as a very, very small altcoin on coinmarketcap. But hey, why not try it !

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 18, 2017, 10:56:58 PM

ok if I don't understand maybe someone else can explain it.

I think you don't understand maybe... nothing changes unless
51% agree on it, and if a hard fork happens the two chains become
divergent, so threats aren't possible.

51%? where you getting that number from? SegWit - is already in the code, but only activates with 95% signaling, BU is already in the BU code but only activates with 85% miners signaling... so we put this in the core code, but only gets activated on 85% miners signaling BU

no - after a fork, there are now two coins both with sha256 POW, each one will have a price and one of them will be worth more... and if BTC end up with more activity and a higher price, then miners are better of mining BTC instead of BTU... to stop this Roger Ver and the BU criminals have promised to attacked the BTC core coin with a 51% attack.. to insure that BTU becomes the only real Bitcoin...

by changing from POW to POS , this attack is not possible!!

and is BTC becomes worth more used more... the BU miners will no longer have the option of switching over and they are shit out if luck!

you really dont understand this stuff... so just stop.

51 is the minimum obviously. Circular reasoning again though w changing to POS. It wont just change to POS unless theres big consensus which is the problem youre trying to solve to begin with. Why you cannot see that, I dont know.

finder_keeper

jr. member

Activity: 58

Merit: 10

If BU has, say, 80%, then here's what they can do to defeat this:

1. Keep 59% on the BU chain.

2. Use 21% to mine on the segwit chain, ensuring a majority on both chains.

3. Kill the segwit chain with fire.

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: ?? on ??

... and > 85% of economic value is backing core...

Economic value defined as what? Any source for that claim?

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: ?? on ??

no - after a fork, there are now two coins both with sha256 POW, each one will have a price and one of them will be worth more... and if BTC end up with more activity and a higher price, then miners are better of mining BTC instead of BTU...

That's in any case the truth, bomb or no bomb. BU will only fork if they are pretty sure the BU chain will be the most valuable in the market, otherwise they won't fork of course. So your nuclear bomb exploding on a low value chain, who gives a shit ?

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

This is complete gobbledegook.

In fact, it is a circular reasoning. The reasoning goes as follows: GIVEN THAT the core chain will be the most valuable, BU miners will avoid forking to leave the most valuable chain behind, and hence the core chain will be the only one remaining. Duh.

If the BU miners were thinking that the core chain was to be the more valuable after the hard fork, they wouldn't pull the hard fork in the first place. The assumption, when you pull a hard fork, is that USERS will value your chain more than the competition. And then you fucking don't care what happens on the rewards of the competition's chain.

BTW, BU miners, IF they fork, will OF COURSE not care that they won't get any reward on the core chain, as they don't even mine it any more.

This "nuclear arm" looks like a plastic gun to me.

No, the REAL REASONS why the BU guys won't fork, is:
1) they don't want to. BU only serves to keep Segwit away.
2) the bitcoin brand name.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

ok if I don't understand maybe someone else can explain it.

I think you don't understand maybe... nothing changes unless
51% agree on it, and if a hard fork happens the two chains become
divergent, so threats aren't possible.

jaybny

sr. member

Activity: 410

Merit: 250

Proof-of-Skill - protoblock.com

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 18, 2017, 10:27:37 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

BTC goes to Proof-of-SegWit... we give all remaining block-rewards on the BTC chain to those miners who signaled SegWit prefork. assuming BTC still has majority economic value... all those BU signaling mining rigs are now unable to be used... knowing this, miners will start signaling SegWit , and BU will never hit 75%

So how does BTC "go to proof of segwit" without changing the consensus rules in the first place? If you could get 51% of the miners to agree, well... then why not simply just use the 51% majority to initiate segwit directly?

after the fork, the BU signaling mining wont count, so yes we have miners agree on a fork. problem is that BTU will then do a 51% attack on BTC, segwit or no segwit.

i can see your not understanding this... thats ok -

if this gets put into code, then it gets activated at the same time as BU does...

all you have to know is that if BU forks then all miners who have been signaling BU will never earn another BTC block-reward, because their mining rigs and hash-power is no longer relevant.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

BTC goes to Proof-of-SegWit... we give all remaining block-rewards on the BTC chain to those miners who signaled SegWit prefork. assuming BTC still has majority economic value... all those BU signaling mining rigs are now unable to be used... knowing this, miners will start signaling SegWit , and BU will never hit 75%

So how does BTC "go to proof of segwit" without changing the consensus rules in the first place? If you could get 51% of the miners to agree, well... then why not simply just use the 51% majority to initiate segwit directly?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 18, 2017, 10:05:49 PM

Hard fork is a hard fork. If BU gets 75% hash power, anything the 25% does is irrelevant because its still a hard fork.

but if the thread of the 25% doing something is enough to avoid the hard-fork then there is no hard fork! Is Russia launches Nuclear Bombs on the US then it doesn't mater what the response is bec we are all dead... but if the threat of the response is credible then the attack doesn't happen in the first place. hence the cold-war

Maybe i'm missing something here. I'm not quite getting it.

My point is that anything the 25% threatens is only going to affect the 25% chain, not the 75% chain... so I'm not understanding how they can create a threat or a deterrent.

Topic: Defensive Nuclear Weapon - Armageddon Avoidance - Proof-of-Coinbase -poison pill (Read 2927 times)