Doesn't matter much what we think locally and at the moment. For u and some others who helped to get Segwit done (first not at all, than with 2x, and later scammed all the 2x away,...). Sure noobs and newbees still buying that crap but that potential seems to dry out with bigger industry checking out that scam.
Time moves on, take ur local stand as u can, the world is not under ur control
BitCoin didn't start as a ticker and didn't start with Segshit.
Netscape is gone as well.
We ll see
I'm open to the possibility that Bitcoin might be dethroned by another coin. I doubt this will be accomplished by hard forking Bitcoin though. The market has shown increasingly less interest with every new hard fork that comes along.
So that puts these forking miners in a difficult position. They have two options:
(a) Fork off and get ignored by the entire market
(b) 51% attack Bitcoin in hopes of getting noticed
Choice (b) would cost millions and millions of dollars on an ongoing basis. Bitcoin users would be inconvenienced by having their transactions censored, but the real financial pressure is on the attacking miners. They are the ones burning through endless money trying to attack Bitcoin. Bitcoin users can just wait until miners capitulate or have no money left.
If Bitcoin users all succumbed to a mere censorship attack and switched to the miners' fork, it would unequivocally prove Bitcoin's incentives do not work. If miners merely need to 51% attack the blockchain to force contentious consensus changes, the entire design discussed in Bitcoin's whitepaper is broken. The term "validity" no longer has any meaning with regard to the security design. There would be no difference between 21 million coins and 21 billion coins from the view of consensus rules. Obviously miners can change whatever rules they want and user consensus doesn't matter at all.
I'm guessing that won't happen based on the last decade of Bitcoin's history. If it does, no version of Bitcoin will retain any value. It obviously fails in its only stated purpose.
Shelby responds thusly:
Segwit is/was compatible with the legacy protocol.
That is a white lie.
It is true that Satoshi’s protocol will run along side of the Core “soft fork” while Core builds up the booty of donations by fooling users into spending their
BTC to “anyone can spend” addresses.
But by creating that booty Core is incompatible with the legacy protocol, because it creates a huge hole in the Nash equilibrium that can only be rectified by the Schelling point of the defense mechanism wherein the miners take the donations and force the Core virus to hardfork off (and force it to fuck off as well).
Your ostensibly either low IQ and/or stubbornness notwithstanding. I have already explained this several times in this thread, but you can not seem to assimilate all the factors into a holistic understanding of reality. If you disagree with
unforgeable costliness then you must make a cogent argument as to why.
Since the Segwit chain is the valid chain with most accumulated POW,
Strongly disagree. The SegWit chain has only accumulated the PoW in the past few months, when SegWit actually became significantly adopted. All the accumulated PoW before that was for the legacy addresses.
Shelby bizarrely believes that despite a large majority of the network enforcing Segwit, miners could successfully hard fork Bitcoin to remove Segwit simply by virtue of hash rate.
Do not lie. That is not an accurate summary of what I have written.
The market has made abundantly clear over and over with such hard fork spinoffs: they are invalid chains. Hard forks. Spinoffs. Airdrops. Altcoins. Shitcoins. Whatever you want to call them.
Correct. And thus Core has no appreciable value.
Not only does the whole idea ignore what the market has proven repeatedly, but it shows great ignorance of the broad support Segwit has.
50% of the population has 15% of the wealth. You ostensibly do not understand valuation. Votes and democracy are worthless and create war because they are so non-meritorious.
Segwit activation obviously catalyzed the 2017 bubble;
Nope. The halving did. You refuse to read:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-modelYet we are now to believe that overnight, miners alone can hard fork the network, steal half the network's wealth for themselves,
Again you lie. As if you have not understood anything I have written in my two prior posts.
This is why only tiny groups of uninformed people in their obscure chat rooms and forums buy into this bullshit. Shelby (and Craig Wright) are just exploiting a small number of peoples' great ignorance of Bitcoin's technical aspects and game theory. Shelby obviously has an even (much, much) smaller audience than Craig Wright though, making his plans all the more pathetic looking.
Lol. Read what I wrote about sheep in my prior post. The reason I ridicule sheep, because their fooliness creates totalitarianism and devastation.
Ahhh sigh. So difficult to teach an idiot.
I'm open to the possibility that Bitcoin might be dethroned by another coin. I doubt this will be accomplished by hard forking Bitcoin though. The market has shown increasingly less interest with every new hard fork that comes along.
Correct. And I have already established in my prior post that Core is the hardfork, not vice versa. Satoshi’s protocol can’t hardfork itself, and can not give its accumulated proof-of-work energy to a “soft fork”. I explained why in my prior post.
Additionally, read what Satoshi wrote as quoted in my prior post. Satoshi said that his protocol is immutable for the rest of the lifetime of Bitcoin.
You continue to ignore what gives Bitcoin its valuation (and thus you continue to promulgate Core’s deception and thus you are helping entrap innocent users in the Core scam!). It is not exchanges, impoverished users, etc..
It is only unforgeable costliness, i.e. miners (and the wealthy users) are the only thing that gives Bitcoin value. Hordes of minions (aka the plebs or serfs) are irrelevant. Until you understand that mathematical fact, you will continue to make the same inane, incorrect arguments.
And once we understand that only mining gives a cryptocurrency
unforgeable costliness, then we understand that we the people can’t have our own cryptocurrency (i.e. not just for the global elite) until we solve at least 3 technological challenges:
1. ASIC resistant mining
2. Volume scaling in a constant block size, because adaptive block sizes are insecure and/or centralizing
3.
Necessary decentralized fractional reserves in a two-tier system (i.e. hodler coin and fractional reserves provably distinct but same unit-of-account) that the banksters can’t control
If someone would create such an altcoin and launch it fairly, perhaps we the people can win?
Is it possible to create such an altcoin?My posts on the subject of ASIC resistant mining:
https://busy.org/@anonymint/psjw06https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/issues/11#issuecomment-499305867https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW/issues/9#issuecomment-499103850Some of you may know my history, that although I used to be prolific coder in my age 20s and 30s, have been suffering from a discombobulating chronic illness since ~2012 (ended up being at least gut Tuberculosis, Dengue infections, STDs, autoimmunity, diseased spleen and liver, chronic fatigue etc) which basically destroyed my ability to code because my liver does not produce enough energy for my brain. So although I can do spotty work on research, I do not seem to have the sustainable energy and work hours to code something myself anymore (at age 54). 
So that puts these forking miners in a difficult position. They have two options:
(a) Fork off and get ignored by the entire market
(b) 51% attack Bitcoin in hopes of getting noticed
Choice (b) would cost millions and millions of dollars on an ongoing basis. Bitcoin users would be inconvenienced by having their transactions censored, but the real financial pressure is on the attacking miners. They are the ones burning through endless money trying to attack Bitcoin. Bitcoin users can just wait until miners capitulate or have no money left.
You conclude that because you fail to understand
unforgeable costliness, which is a concept invented by Nick Szabo for bitgold, before Bitcoin was launched. I explained that in my prior post. Again I urge you to read:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-modelThe mining farms are controlled by the wealthy who understand
unforgeable costliness. So of course they will mine the original, not the hardfork. And thus Core will die. Simple as that. The users will gnash their teeth and scream because Core transactions will not be confirmed, exchanges will fail, the ecosystem will come crashing down. I blogged about this yesterday:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/bitco-i-n-will-collapse-to-usd775-price-soon <--- will be adding more to this blog soon
If Bitcoin users all succumbed to a mere censorship attack and switched to the miners' fork, it would unequivocally prove Bitcoin's incentives do not work. If miners merely need to 51% attack the blockchain to force contentious consensus changes, the entire design discussed in Bitcoin's whitepaper is broken.
If no SegWit booty exists to create the incentive, then no Schelling point exists to cause the miners to go mine where the greater value is.
The incentives of proof-of-work remain extremely secure. It is the deception of Core which creates the huge “anyone can spend” booty, that causes the miners to rally towards the immutable value. This is a clever game theory that Satoshi put in Bitcoin, which protects against such attempts to use politics to take control of Bitcoin. Because we know politics is rent-seeking, kleptocracy (which is precisely what Core has been attempting to do with their Omnibus list of “features” and business models).
IOW, none of the miners can unilaterally 50+% attack Bitcoin. Even Craig’s group only has about 3% of the network hashrate, but that is ostensibly enough to be the leader of the SegWit booty driven Schelling point. The miners need some huge carrot for a Schelling point to exist. Once the Core deception is removed, then Nash equilibrium will be restored and no 50+% attack will be possible.
Obviously miners can change whatever rules they want and user consensus doesn't matter at all.
Nope. The miners can not change anything. They can only enforce Satoshi’s immutable protocol via the clever game theory Satoshi created.
