hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF) - page 3.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 09:34:09 PM

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

i've been thinking more about this and its' a great theory -- i think i was missing the point of what you were saying before...its not about BU, its about divide and conquer. to me Core created a problem (by not raising 1mb)...BU trying to be solution...and then both sides just fight. Brilliant!

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 09:34:09 PM

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I saw somewhere that the Current network is about 3,300,000 TH/s or +/- 240 000 Antminer S9's. So you would need about $250 000 000+ to do this. <120 000 Antminer S9's @ roughly $2100 US = $ 250 000 000 US> This is only for the miners without the other cost to setup the operation.

Banks have investors and even if they manage to stop Bitcoin, it would not be a guarantee that another Crypto currency that are ASIC resistant will not take it's place.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 27, 2017, 11:05:45 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 09:56:43 PM

Quote from: Viscount on March 27, 2017, 09:46:41 PM

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD Sad

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking. Think about it.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 09:56:43 PM

Quote from: Viscount on March 27, 2017, 09:46:41 PM

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD Sad

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

jornaldobitcoin

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 09:39:49 PM

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 09:34:09 PM

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

in this hypothesis they would be using blocksize discussion to divide and conquer.
They are already sold to the banks. No possibility of losing money.they sold their future mining operations, hardware, manufacturing.
It would create a possibility to stole bitcoin traction, name, or just try to hurt it for a cheaper cost of mining bankscoin in the future, or to prevent competition.
Users get hurt , at least in short term.
If someone reading this could make it reach higher levels in bitcoin community for analysis! i don´t want to spread this to the general public.

Yakamoto

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 09:39:49 PM

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 09:34:09 PM

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Well, BU is a solution to a debate we're having in the community, and this might just be convenient timing for banks and they're exploiting the situation that has been made available to them.

While this is being slightly tinfoil-y there hasn't been a better opportunity for banks to step in and look to cement some power by offering a good solution to a problem that their opponent (us) is having. If your opponent is making a mistake, put on a mask and solve it for him. Make sure he owes you.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 10:12:12 PM

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.

jornaldobitcoin

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Viscount on March 27, 2017, 09:46:41 PM

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD Sad

are you talking about OP or me?

Viscount

sr. member

Activity: 243

Merit: 250

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD Sad

Viscount

sr. member

Activity: 243

Merit: 250

Another BU shill? no need to speculate such complicated schemes. It's just chinese miners and Vermin trying to take over bitcoin, just see some facts.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 27, 2017, 09:34:09 PM

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

jornaldobitcoin

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

Topic: hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF) - page 3. (Read 2662 times)