Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 23. (Read 33250 times)

There is in fact nothing exceptional to what is presented here as a kind of big conspiracy:
if a hard fork of a coin is made, then of course all owners of the coins, having double coins, will decide in the market.  If there is a large preference by coin owners for one chain over the other, they will dump their holdings on one, to buy more of the other ; this will reflect in the relative market valuations of both market caps.

Whether this is done by "big whales", or by myriads of small owners doesn't really matter: it is the stake holders that split over the two coins according to their preferences.  Of course, if one of the chains is largely preferred by the majority stake, the other one will be "dumped into oblivion" but there's nothing wrong with that: it is stake preference.

However, I think that all these people are missing the point: miners don't want to hard fork.  The current bitcoin protocol is a dream for them.  They simply don't want it changed.  The only ones pushing for forks are the Core guys with Segwit, and now with change of PoW.

The BU are naive instrumentalized guys (or not so naive), that only need to exist to give counter weight to Core's desires to change bitcoin.  BU is not supposed to fork for real.  It only needs to bring sufficient dissent so that bitcoin can stay itself.

As such, the story becomes more involved: the only people *really wanting to fork away* are the Core side because they aren't pleased that bitcoin doesn't want to evolve according to their wishes ; that they have lost centralized control over bitcoin's protocol and cannot dictate the changes as they wish.   Those stopping them, and acting as the guardians of immutability, are the miners.  So the propaganda now wants to picture the miners as the people wanting change (with BU).  But they would be out of their minds to want change.  Bitcoin is a dream for them.

The ultimate scare tactics is to threaten the miners that if they don't comply to the changes Core wants, they will render their investments useless by changing PoW.   If the market (the whales) is with them, then yes, Core could bring out a fork with a new PoW, and the whales would kill the original bitcoin by dumping it to go to the forked Core version.

However, that will be a much, much more risky operation than at first sight, because you would need very strong collusion to do that: all exchanges would need to list "bitcoin" as the FORK, and need to list the ORIGINAL bitcoin as the alt coin.  Note that it worked with ethereum: the fork went with the name.  There WAS strong collusion between the whales, the Foundation, and the few exchanges listing ethereum to keep the name on the fork, and dump the original ethereum (renamed ETC) to oblivion.  Note that they ALSO had collusion of the miners.

But the power structure in bitcoin is different, and the *main propaganda for bitcoin*, the "longest chain, most protected by PoW" is going to be a very strong argument AGAINST such a PoW scheme, which cannot deliver a similar PoW security as the original bitcoin which will have ALL miners behind it (they have no choice !).

The surviving "old bitcoin" would have a more grassroots aspect than the new "big whales" coin with low PoW.  If ever the whales made a mistake, they would have their own coin amongst themselves to play with, and the "greater fools" would swarm to "cheap, true bitcoin": true bitcoin at $20, -, who wouldn't want to buy some !  With PoW like before, solid as a rock.  With the 1MB blocks largely sufficient to sustain the low traffic.  Bitcoin back in 2012, who wouldn't want to jump the train they missed the first time !

I call bluff.

It doesn't need to scale a lot.  In fact, this dumping has to be done on an exchange listing both coins, right ?
So this exchange should get some dust, even before being able to allow deposits and withdrawals in real coins from both coins.  Once such an exchange has "dust" (it can "explode" the dust in single Satoshis if it wants to), it can mix in dust in every withdrawal transaction on the whales' chain.  There aren't so many exchanges.  They only have to have some dust.

But the "trading" with IOU can start immediately of course: that's just a matter of virtual games on the exchange's web site.  But withdrawals will be impossible until the exchange has at least some dust from one chain or the other.  If the exchange is wise, it doesn't list the coins before obtaining the dust, because it could put itself in serious difficulties otherwise.

In fact, the exchanges only need one single time "dust": they need to "pay their big wallet to themselves" once with dust in it.  After that, all withdrawals and deposits on that wallet are chain-only.


Oh, well, that is still 100 years away  Bitcoin most probably won't exist any more then.
And in any case, no tail emission is a disaster if you need to reward people.  I think no inflation is OK, but in a voluntary system only.

Shelby; If you would need to assess the relative seniority of me and Mircea Popescu, which criteria would you use?

For the mining cartel, it isn't about small or large blocks. That is a red-herring issue. It is about the mining cartel proving that they are in control, so they can attain more capital because they have demonstrated that they can debase the 21 million coin limit and steal the wealth of the Bitcoin whales such as MP (the guy discussed in the prior posts).

It is also likely that China (the government or military) is viewing Bitcoin as financial weapon they need control over.

Apparently the cartel has the willingness and resolve.


You are not thinking clearly. One the one hand is the mining cartel 51% attacks the minority chain, then who ever mines the minority chain will never earn anything. OTOH, with a PoW hash change, the whales who own 80% of the Bitcoin will sell the mining cartel's fork and buy their own fork. So the rest of the investors will follow the rising price and copy them. Thus the mining cartel's fork will die. And those miners can't do anything with their infrastructure and they are completely bankrupted and destroyed.


I also am wondering why the Chinaman mining cartel is so brave to challenge MP. 200 million yuan ($29 million) is peanuts for MP. Perhaps the Chinese government has committed to provide as much funds as is necessary. I would love to see MP defeated and bankrupted. Would be a good lesson for him about relative size of economies (China is a not an overleveraged, vacuous fiat house of cards yet like the West).

---

Why don't the BU supporters understand that Core has been told by the majority of the wealth (i.e. the whales) that if they fuck with the block size using a HF, then MP will change the PoW hash (or some other method I haven't yet determined), and destroy their HF and bankrupt/punish miners who mine on it.

Can you update me on Mircea Popescu's involvement. I already mentioned in the other threads if there was a guy capable of annihilating Bitcoin Unlimited it was him. Is there definite proof of his involvement? Sorry but I am lazy of reading the whole thread. If you would be so nice to give me the link of the post where Mircea's name was first mentioned then I'll read it all up. Thanks.

You can think about it like about big conspiracy but real life can get you on ground.
Yes we stand today at wall we choose scalability solution even there is demand for those transactions it will be capped at current design.
BTC @price like 600$ was that when people were able to buy BTC and transact and build/run applications on BTC (like counter party)
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees
https://blockchain.info/pl/charts/n-transactions
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts

So for me BTC was at balance 10.2016 price BTC 600$ and average fee 0.15$ 220 000tx/day
BTC was out of balance 03.2017 @1200 and fee 1$ 300 000tx/day cap reached.
So balance that allow you to rise is like:
1MB - 600$/BTC - 220 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 0,1 MB internet connection + 37 GB/year
If you want rise in BTC price you need:
10MB - 6 000$/BTC- 2 200 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 1MB internet connection + 370 GB/year
100MB - 60 000$/BTC- 22 000 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 10MB internet connection+ 3 700 GB/year
1000MB - 600 000$/BTC- 220 000 000tx/day - 70% blocksize > 100MB internet connection+ 37 000 GB/year
Visa have 2000tx/s so   172 800 000tx/day

Those are HARD data you cannot go over them. To me goal that want BTC-U achive is FUKING JOKE this is not do able in decentralized system, those miners aim to be "Visa" even if it will be possible BTC won't no longer decentralized who will be able to handle that chain ?
BTU system is utopia but users doesn't have resources to adapt. BTC-U won't be p2p but user2datacenter.
Data-centers can be shutdown can be regulated can be DDOSed. Governments can go to those datacenters and force them to move into any fork they want.

Segwit will push fee price into heaven over time, but to make BTC cheaper you will have to use decentralized 2nd layer solutions.
2nd layer solution is just pure need and can not be bypass for me.
There is scenario when we have that would be coin with no blockchain.
But this is not BTC patch.



Depend bro who is really behind that fork miners ? or China government ? If miners have China government support they can buy all those cheap BTC-U and pump it then sell that product as China digital currency. China government is not that stupid they will allow it to rise and they will point guns at central miners to make some changes in few years when people won't be able move away from BTC-U.

If behind BTC-C is US government (fraction reserve is their old school trik ) while behind BTC-U will stand China government it will be interesting battle. You can not say in 100% accuracy that BTC-U will be worth shit - China central bank can buy your dump.
If Chinise were planning such attack then we will see that in price.

Work? Did someone offer me a job? I thought we were sharing information on this site as groupwise effort.

I haven't tried asking him directly.

But there is no way I am going to read "22`352`146 words" of what is mostly pissing in the wind all day about same concepts over and over again (did you really read all that like a good slave sycophant?):


MP is obviously very smart, thus I certainly should be afraid of missing out on such important wisdom as ...

No, it's true. No, I'm not going to do your work for you. The logs are public, and Mr.P is publicly available.

Thanks for the slander. How about enumerating instead of some nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that requires me to wade through endless 1000s of pages of self-aggrandizing redundant prose.

I would very much like to understand. But I shouldn't subjected to his cultural indoctrination just to find out. Be more transparent please. Open source is not about private clubs and obfuscation.

I'll be grateful if you point out my errors. That is what open source is about.

I don't have time to read him all day every day. I have work to do. Doesn't he realize that other people have work to do? Would he really want a world where autonomous productive energies where useless because only he has worthwhile truths. Could y'all be a bit less cryptic.

(note I haven't yet started the mental process of trying to exhaustively think of other options. That is on my todo list for later today after I get through replying and dealing with other tasks)

You propose to spend the compound transaction on the whales' fork first, then after that has confirmed then respend the same inputs on the non-whales' fork without mixing in the coinbase inputs. The non-whales' fork can't replay the former because of the coinbase inputs mixed in the transaction. Or vice versa ordering if the coinbase from the non-whales' fork are in the compound transaction.

Your idea would not to scale well if employing the coinbase from the whales' fork, because how does the miner transfer those dust to others, because if dust were allowed in unconstrained blocks normally then Bitcoin mining would be spammed. So even with larger (but constrained) blocks it seems dust transactions will be done at huge losses on the whales' fork (when done is large volume).

And winning a block (to obtain coinbase dust) on the non-whales' fork will be impossible by definition because the mining cartel possesses a 51% attack.

So looks like your proposal would be risky and thus my logic on why whales need to defend small blocks remains valid.

Perhaps you are the one who needs more sleep (although it is true I need more recovery).   (or maybe you just need to restrain the hubris)

Edit: and your proposal doesn't work when inflation ends. The whales apparently want a hard limit at 21 million tokens. Although it seems a minuscule, diminishing (not even a percentage, i.e. not exponential growth) tail reward could accomplish what you want or even some other mechanism of referencing blocks in transactions. I had actually thought of this referencing blocks (before my prior post) but rejected it because it doesn't scale well.

He virtually died of TB. Under reconstruction. We're rebuilding him better. So iamnotback yet is true.


I was analyzing what the outcome would be if the mining cartel has the capability to mount a 51% attack. Do they?


Do did you disagree with my analysis as to why the whales who own Bitcoin won't allow an increase to the block size?

My assumption is that Core is trying to use this standoff to make sure other things they want are enabled before satiating the near-term crisis requiring a block size increase. In other words, they don't want to waste the crisis and delay their work. They know we need LN for scaling. And they want to be able to enable adding more features to Bitcoin in order to compete with altcoins.


Fees will be higher on chain than off chain. The off chain entities will have to compete to get their settlements on chain, so a portion of their off chain fees end up paid as fees on chain.


Only the whales who have real assets (i.e. 80% of the Bitcoins) and generate ongoing cash flow external to mining have the economic might to own Bitcoin. What do the mining cartels have other than sunk costs and debt?

You make this overly complicated.  Replay attacks are impossible from the moment you mix with newly mined coins on the split chain.  No need to make it so complicated.

Look, after the first "whales" block is mined, the coinbase of that block is split in dust (you'll have to wait for many blocks before you are able to spend the coinbase, but that's not a problem), and each of these dust UTXO can be used in mixers to split for good any coin, making a replay attack of that spending impossible on the other fork, because exactly that coinbase transaction simply didn't exist on the other fork, the "miner fork" (other miner, other address, other signature !).  The signatures of both transactions are hence totally different.  The transaction will be different and hence the signature will be different, and will not be valid on the other fork --> no replay possible.

No need to have to fully block the small blocks in order not to spend your coin in a replay attack.  Simply mix with dust from a new coinbase transaction.  Exchanges should quickly get themselves some of that dust ; big whales will find a way to get some of that dust too.  And eventually, mixers can be set up for the lesser life forms, mixing in some dust.

--> you need more sleep

If you didn't misread and misrepresent MP's works, you might realise there are plenty more options than these.

Good to see you back Anonymint.  You should get them to give you your old user back .

Bitcoin Ulimited has fallen to 38.5% of the previous blocks mined.  This is possible variance.  I understand that 75%+ of the mining power is in China but that doesn't necessarily mean all the mining lords agree.  Are we really confident there is going to be a fork?  

For the record - I've put my money where my mouth is and taken on a massive leveraged short several days ago.  "This is just FUD.  Buy and Hold.  Nothing to see here." when there are full blocks, and a goddamned civil war going on with 40% of the hash power threatening bigger blocks.  I think people are naive.  But I do have a few questions.

Why core won't agree to 2MB blocks + SEGWIT rather than the forkening alternative.  How is this not a likely outcome?

On a longer term scale - how can a PoW system provide sustainable security without all fees going to the miners when there is a future 0 inflation rate?

If 75% of fees are going to cheaper offchain transactions (which I think is likely - I haven't done the math but I assume a far larger amount of money is spent in lower transactions than higher transactions that would be onchain).  It's literally an upside down pyramid with the market cap being the top.  And the percentage of the market cap spent on securing the network on the bottom.

The larger it grows, the smaller the security to market cap ratio it gets.  I don't see anyone talking about this but I've been concerned about it for a few years.  How is this not ultimate doom for any crypto that takes it's fees offchain?

This is the third attempt for bigger blocks.  I am to the point of assuming if this one fails the miner cartels will literally hire their own miners and simply take over the bitcoin network.

What will be the point of holding bitcoin in one hand. Then the value itself may be lost. I probably will not take offense much if big whales start pumping the crypto currency in some way, although I doubt it very much, we will use something new or well forgotten old.

Makes sense, but that implies the whales will join together and try to pump bitcoin back up, because it'll probably flippen with ethereum by then. What if random joe's faith in bitcoin is lost by then ? They might not have enough buy power to cause another flippening and get bitcoin back to #1.

This post and the one that follows it in the thread should give insight into the current move from the game being on the XMR standard and moving to the CK standard: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18325686

After sleeping and while laying in bed upon awakening, I realized something (which if I am correct is) very important.

Readers you need to pay attention because this is the most important post you are going to read about the entire blocksize debate. This will make it all crystal clear.

When I wrote the above quoted, I didn't realize the precise reason the Bitcoin whales must defend small blocks. It apparently has nothing to do with a desire to force the non-whales to off chain transactions. Rather I have deduced that the requirement could be driven by a very specific technical reason.

So the Bitcoin whales want to retain the power to remove any mining cartel that forms, because this is absolutely necessary to prevent a cartel from doing evil things such as increasing the money supply limit beyond 21 million tokens, blocking transactions from certain individuals, and other forms of non-meritorious monkey business.

The Bitcoin whales simply want a meritorious money system that can't be used to sustain the fiat debt nonsense which has turned our world into a fucking mess. This is why Mircea (alias his business MPeX) is against what he abbreviates as "USG.MIT", which means all the fuckers running the bankrupt fiat system and their brainwashing academic institutions. So actually we are on the same side as the Bitcoin whales philosophically:


The Bitcoin whales retain this power because they control sufficient liquid and real cash flow generating assets such that they could cause a selloff of the tokens on the mining cartel's fork, thus their fork would win because investors move to the fork which has more demand. The mining cartel has only illiquid sunk costs assets (the mining infrastructure) and self-referential (i.e. not real) cash flow.

Thus the Bitcoin whales only need to change the PoW hash function to render the mining cartel's ASICs useless. There is absolutely no way for the BU mining cartel to win the war of attrition. It is just economics. Think it out. MPeX and his cohorts own more than 80% of the liquid Bitcoins.


But there is one crucial detail. In order the kill off the mining cartel's fork, it must be possible to split the tokens so they are separately spendable on the two forks. But if the mining cartel is determined that their fork will always honor the data format of the transactions of the Bitcoin whale's fork, then the only way to accomplish splitting is to spend the tokens first on the fork with the large blocks but send them with such a small transaction fee that they do not make it into any small block. Then after those are confirmed on the large block fork, respend the same tokens on the small block fork with a sufficient transaction fee. The Bitcoin whales will make sure the small blocks are always full so that this strategy is available.

So that was an essential insight. The reason Bitcoin whales need small blocks, is that is the only technical way they would be able to split tokens to kill off an attack by a determined mining cartel!

So it is not that the Bitcoin whales subjectively desire our non-whale transactions to be off chain. They objectively have no choice, because of the technical design of Satoshi's PoW.

I've been wondering why the Bitcoin whales didn't tell us this frankly, so that we would be on their side. I think the reason is it would have hindered the adoption of Bitcoin, because it would make it clear there are overlords who are safeguarding Bitcoin. It sort of kills the delusion of an autonomous decentralization. However, the small text below posits a solution.

I posit I have a solution to this technical problem which will meet the aims of the Bitcoin whales and also keep all transactions on the blockchain. My solution gets rid of PoW. I have not yet publicly published this solution.


Btw, to profit on the upcoming scenario such that you can sell the fake Bitcoin asap before its price collapses, you might think that you will need to have your BTC in a wallet (not on an exchange) and then you will need to spend your Bitcoin for an altcoin or fiat making sure your transaction fee is small enough that it only goes into a large block. Then later you will need to join together with other Bitcoin holders to issue a joint transaction with a high enough transaction fee to make it into a 1MB block. Because the demand will be so high that the transaction fees on 1MB blocks will likely be higher than you can pay alone. So since this is likely to drive demand for altcoins then it might just be easier to buy an altcoin now, except you won't have a copy of the real Bitcoin token and will need to trade to get back into it later. But the problem with this strategy is how do you find and execute a trade of your fake Bitcoin with someone willing to give your fiat or an altcoin?

The situation of the exchanges is more complex. The exchanges must split the tokens before they can allow them to trade as split tokens (because exchanges can't take exchange rate risk of splitting them internally if they aren't already split on chain of the blockchain forks). So initially what the exchanges will be offering for trade is the joint token which hasn't been split yet. But that joint token won't allow you to arbitrage the difference in value of the fake and real forks of the token. So therefor, to trade your altcoin (or fiat) back to the real Bitcoin, you will not be able to do this on an exchange when the relative price of the real Bitcoin (relative to the fake Bitcoin) is low, because you will only be able to trade for the joint value of the fake and real Bitcoin. To maximize your gains from this coming split (i.e. trade for the real Bitcoin when its price is low), you would need to trade off exchange somehow. Or mine it! The Bitcoin whales will be selling their fake Bitcoin for fiat for spending on mining the real Bitcoin, if they can find anyone to execute a trade with. There really won't be much incentive for the exchanges to split the tokens because the fake Bitcoin will rapidly approach worthlessness.

Thus the fake Bitcoins that the mining cartel mines will be worthless. Nobody will be willing to trade for them because everybody is going to be trying to dump them. Well perhaps some fools who didn't read my post explaining why large blocks are evil, will be willing to buy the BTU tokens and perish along with the other retards. Maybe Roger Ver will bankrupt himself in the process if isn't reading my posts. So it won't be too long before the mining cartel goes bankrupt since their revenue dies. And they won't be able to come back to the real Bitcoin because the PoW hash will have changed. The BU and Chinaman retards are going to be totally destroyed. There is absolutely no way the BU mining cartel can win this fight. Fugetaboutit.