Topic: If Core had to hard fork and use another mining algorithm, what would it be? - page 2. (Read 3467 times)

I think my misinterpretation is snowballing.  I thought ChromaticStar meant they were worried that Core were overstepping their boundaries by proposing an algo change, but I understand now that it's not what was meant at all.  I was saying that users would be happy to support the change of algorithm if it came to it, not increase the blocksize.  That remains to be seen.

Well for starters, you are assuming a lot of things that "users" would want. Would users want a centralized network due big blocks? don't think so.

In any case, do users have big blocks already? Yes, they have BCash. Are users moving from BTC to BCash? Nope, no one uses that shit, even if the transactions are very cheap, it's not worth it because the developers are retards and all the smart people are working in Core, and when it comes to money, you want the smartest people to be developing the software that is the backbone for the network you are depositing your money at, not to mention BTC is now very cheap to transact with segwit and no Roger and Jihad spam. And if there's a way to test what users want, is to see if they want the big blocker fork and they do not, so stop assuming everyone using Coinbase or whatever are supporting the segwit2x scam when they don't even know about it.
Let's see if they like how the segwit2x scammers crash the market in November due causing yet another unnecessary fork as holders suffer from it.

Well for starters, Core don't have the "authority to rule BTC".  It's almost a given that users would be open to a change in algorithm if the alternative was having stuck transactions due to an overall hashrate too low for the current difficulty.  Users would therefore be happy to run the new code, so it's not a case of the Devs ruling over anything and the decision would be equally influenced by Devs and Users.  And the very notion of a change of algorithm wouldn't be on the table unless it was absolutely necessary.  Developers wouldn't be pushing it on an unwilling community just for the sake of it.

I think it's safe to say that the entire idea behind the change in algorithm is to deter ASICs and render them useless.  It's very much a 'nuclear option' and last resort.  But that's just indicative of how far things have escalated in this dispute.

//EDIT:  I realise I've probably misinterpreted that first part.  You meant the miners' supposed ability to rule over BTC.  But I'd argue equally with that stance too.  Miners, Users and Devs all generally have an equal share in the balance of power in that one can't accomplish much alone without the others.
//

If it were implemented early enough, it would indeed drive a firm wedge between the two chains and provide inherent replay protection, but it remains to be seen how quickly the change of algorithm would be activated.  I think everyone will want to tread carefully considering the magnitude of the change.

I get the feeling that if Core were to change the algo to stop the ASICs, that would pretty much kill their authority to rule BTC ever again. Who would ever invest in an ASIC miner with the threat of an algo change that can render it useless? I don't care if someone builds an ASIC miner, but it is the public/users that should have authority over BTC, not miners.

It is really hard to say how it will all turn out. Without replay protection, both chains are vulnerable. A number of miners will probably just mine the most profitable chain, but I hope Core has contingency plans built in to change the algo right away and we'll be back to GPU mining.

Would an algo change provide inherent replay protection?

The big question is if all that hashing power actually does support 2x, or if some of the pools are just waiting to see who blinks first.  Many here are still predicting a domino-effect where one big pool drops their support and then others swiftly follow.  Or, if it ends up like BCH did, where the miners were just pointing their hashpower at whichever chain happened to be more profitable at any given moment, the hashrate could be more evenly split.  In that situation, there may not be adequate surplus hashrate to maintain the 2x chain while simultaneously performing the 51% attack.  There are still quite a few permutations on how this could all play out. 

But yes, if a significant majority of hashrate really does turn out to be supporting 2x and the SegWit-Only chain is struggling to propagate, an algo change would indeed be a wise choice.



The other thing for everyone to bear in mind is that 'ASIC-resistance' will only ever be temporary if there is still sufficient incentive to mine the SegWit-Only chain.  There's no such thing as 'ASIC-proof'.  The reason Vertcoin's ASIC resistance is currently a safe bet is because Vertcoin isn't as big a draw as Bitcoin.  Let's be frank here, a sub-$40 million market cap and barely being in the top 100 coins simply doesn't attract the same level of hardware related research money.  So naturally there will be less funding towards developing dedicated chips for that Lyra algorithm.  Whichever algo the Core devs select will be thrust into the spotlight and the money will come flooding in to develop chips for that algo (again, providing there is still sufficient incentive to use the SegWit-Only chain).  Hence my thinking it might be in idea to use more than one algo, just to slow ASIC development as much as possible and keep the playing field level for a bit longer.

Yes, I've been think of moving into VERT for this very reason, but if core is going to switch to an ASIC-proof chain, then VERT effectively becomes obsolete.

Whatever it would be, it should be geared towards ASIC resistance and promoting a more even playing field between entities of different computing budgets. I'd wager a variant of bcrypt or scrypt would be it. I remember Vertcoin tried something of the sort. I think their variant was called Lyra.

I'm sort of under the assumption that a change in the algo must occur. With so much hashing power on the miner backed Segwit2x chain, it is in their interest to ensure that their chain survives. Therefore, they must 51% attack the Core chain to kill it. The only way the Core chain can survive is if they change to an ASIC proof algo, which Maxwell has stated he will support if he has to. Is this correct?

It's a bit of a financial gamble at this stage, as the change of algorithm isn't set in stone.  If there are any GPU-mineable altcoins you wouldn't mind accumulating as a fallback, then go for it.  But if you have your mind set on Bitcoin, wait until the change of algo is confirmed.  GPU miners don't really touch the sides as it were while the ASICs are still in play.

I don't have much technical experience and I've never mined before. From everything I've been reading on the technical forums, the 2x chain is not in any way "Bitcoin." At this point, with a fork almost inevitable, would it be worth it to buy a GPU miner, learn to use it and support the Core backed chain when the network splits in November?

Signalling is akin to people wearing hats on twitter and doesn't hold much weight. Miners ultimately follow profits and their signalling is often contradictory but this is the most recent tally -

Bitcoin Mining Pool 6 month hashrate share % for miners who agreed to NYA

34 1 Hash (China) 2.8%
35 BitClub Network (Hong Kong) 3.5%
36 Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) 2.3%
37 Bitfury (United States) 7.1%
38 Bitmain (China) (Antpool) 17.5%
39 btc.com (China) 10.7%
10 BTCC (Also a DGC Company) 7.8%
40 BTC.TOP (China) 10.7%
41 F2Pool (China) 9.5% Abandoned NYA

42 ViaBTC (China) 5.3%

Share of hashrate 67.7%



No. A PoW change is generally regarded as a worst case scenario and unlikely to happen . If segwit2x forks people like me and many others will simply split our coins and begin to dump our barrycoin alt on exchanges to rebuy back bitcoin. This should drive back most the hashrate . If ~15% of the hashrate doesn't return in a few weeks than users like myself might consider a PoW change HF.




Various plans have already been made , but it isn't wise to announce before necessary. The algo will likely memory hard , thus mined with GPUs. Candidates like Keccak SHA512 or cuckoo are example candidates

You don't get it, you're thinking in snapshots. The moment when some group of upstart ASIC producers make a Scrypt miner is not somehow frozen in time forever.

ASIC makers, irrelevant of their size when they begin their business, have an incentive to gouge their prices to bestow their own personal mining operations with an unassailable competitive advantage.

The actual solution is to choose a PoW hashing algorithm for which no-one has an ASIC design, thereby allowing regular users to use standard equipment to compete more effectively against warehouse scale mining operations. Algorithms that allow regular people to use standard, non-specialised equipment are the key to decentralising the hashrate.


(you should get a job doing propaganda for established Bitcoin mining ASIC producers, you accidentally say all the things they really want the public to believe)

In this case, I think it's the other way around ... if there is no algorithm-specific ASIC hardware available, then someone with big pockets and experience in the field (and who would be better prepared for that than Bitmain?) will develop it, as it's probably impossible to find a totally "ASIC-resistant" algorithm (like you said in a previous post).

They could use their first mover advantage to get a large portion of the network hashrate holding back a portion of the equipment for themselves, so they could dominate easily and even attack the chain.

That's why I think with an algorithm like Scrypt, where already ASICs exist, could be better suited, because there is already a market for specialized hardware, so it would become more difficult to get that first mover advantage.

51% attacks against the Bitcoin network are:

• Permissionless
• Also possible with 92% of the hashrate

And that's what this "fork" really is, using a cartelised hashrate to perform a 51% attack to steer the Bitcoin network away from the interests of the users. It's pretty obvious, as the fork provides no discernible upgrade to the network, includes uncompromising support from every questionable corporation in Bitcoin commerce, and features a political authoritarian as the chief developer.

If there was some kind of technical merit to Segwit2x, sure, we call it a fork. But seeing as it's a hashrate-led political move, it's a 51% attack.

"Let them fork"?  Oh, so they have your permission now, do they?    

I suppose that's about the best I can hope for, so I won't waste too much time pointing out that they were free to do that all along, with or without your blessing.  Also, I like the latest shift in emphasis that it's not about the economic majority anymore and it's only the informed 1% who matter.  Keep moving those goalposts, you insipid fascist.

But yes, they may well be making a mistake.  There may be no real demand for 2x.  The only thing that matters is you can't stop them from trying because that isn't your decision to make.

Uh, that would be a reason against using Scrypt. Mining cartels would still be pushing their agenda if there is ASIC hardware in existence, which for Scrypt, there is.

Caution, another Segwit2x shill coming in

But I am really interested in the original question. For me, the November fork will be far from a "triviality" if the current support for Segwit2x continues the way the block header messages indicate. I don't consider BitPay, Coinbase and Xapo at all "overrated" or so, it is even possible that they are the economic majority, on their own. So definitively it will be hard for "Original Bitcoin" to survive if 90% of the miners switch and the big companies switch, too.

I would like a long-term switch to something like Proof-of-Space, but I think there must be much more research about that topic to only be able to think about it (only 2 altcoins I know about - Spacecoin and Burst - are using it now, but I am not very convinced about their implementations). Proof-of-Importance mentioned by @buwaytress is basically Proof of Stake and thus I would only support it if the nothing-at-stake-problem is definitively solved or it is proven that the derived attacks are so impractical and expensive that they are more difficult to execute than 51%ing Bitcoin.

Anyway - I think the algorithm must be chosen so that Bitcoin cannot be easily attacked by the big mining cartels. Maybe Scrypt isn't the worst option for a "nuclear option" algorithm, because there is already hardware available and there is lots of experience in the altcoin world.

I'm aware that it's not just miners who make the decision and there has to be both support from non-mining nodes and economic support from users and third party services.  The real point is, if a fork happens, we'll get to find out for certain where that super-majority lies, rather than than putting the cart before the horse and just assuming based on your own personal preference about which chain each of you happen to like best.  It's largely speculation until we see the actual usage in real time.  You can't prevent the open market from doing its thing here in Cryptoland, and there's undeniably a gap in the market attempting to fill itself if these forks are occurring.  Assign the blame for that where you will, whether it's crying foul of "miner cartels", or "benevolent dictators" developing alternative clients, but there's no stopping it.  Plus, everyone can finally stop bitching about the miners having too much influence if they're going to head off and do their own thing.  People should be happy about all this, but I suspect no one actually will be because it's all about teh dramas^(sic)  

---

LOL NOPE.  No one group does.  That's the whole point.  No one dictates anything.  Everyone does what's best for their own selfish interests and consensus, together with the free market, sorts it all out.  Create the right alignment of incentives and everyone works together voluntarily, don't create the right alignment of incentives and people fork off.  

---

Technically, the developers don't even have to settle on a single algorithm.  It's possible to use more than one.  I'm pretty sure there's an altcoin out there utilising 6 at once.  This also apparently helps with ASIC resistance due to the extra math involved.  Certainly something to consider.  If the goal is ASIC resistance, maybe leave Scrypt well alone.

Full nodes dictate what bitcoin is. At the end of the day the rules are imposed by the software you are running, which is why government agents are trying to push hardfork-attacks that involve big block sizes, so only their corporations can impose said rules and not random people on their basements.

A miner could have massive amounts of hashrate and "prove a lot of work" which is useless if the people isn't accepting that hashrate as valid because they are using full nodes that ignore their blocks.

Similarly, just because you have a ton of machines that can make a huge hole in the middle of a desert and prove you did all of that work, nobody is going to value a stupid hole in the middle of a desert. So don't fall for this "we have all the hashrate so we rule" bullshit agenda that some are trying to push, including McAfee which made new friends Roger and Jihan Wu recently.



Can you fucking believe it?