Topic: MIner Question (Read 1781 times)

No it does not.
ZEIT's proof of Stake design has not used a hard coded checkpoint in years.
It is only secured by the coins and longest chain for years now.

By the way, PoW or PoS can use checkpoints , it is not specific to either algorithm.
Bitcoin used checkpoints for their early years.

FYI:
Adding a hard coded checkpoint during major design changes is a smart thing to do.
Core devs were stupid not to add one for the segwit nonsense.

http://archive.is/dEZ35
Satoshi own words on Checkpoints

Over 10 years of beta code, pretty lame.
With that track record, LN will never be ready.

You can pretty well bet, the ones that China shuts down because the miners are causing grid problems will fail in the long run.
With PoS , there is no insane power drain, and China would have a hard time pinpointing an exact physical location if the staker wanted to hide from them.

---

The Correct Answer.  

---

FYI:
BSV went up over 88% in a single day, looks like the miners are starting their Halving Games.

Yeah , you really did, maybe you'll be brighter by the halving.   

You know, you guys are so clueless, I going to let you find out when it happens,
Watch the coins right after the halving and see if you figure it out then. 

Gotta love , how you totally ignore that the transaction fees went from $0.80 to $100.
Missing the forest for the tree.        

Would you pay $100 to move $10 , $20, $50?
Most people won't. For them it does disables bitcoin.
Also ends any merchant adoption.

It totally destroys BTC utility as a payment system for anyone not transmitting $10000 or more.
Even then just paying by credit card or check or paypal or anything else makes more sense.

FYI: It is amazing how short term most of the people memories are here.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-rising-high/

Then, what protects its blockchain from the vulnerability of long-range nothing-at-stake attacks? Attacks that cost nothing to produce millions and millions of blockchains controlled by an attacker?

You said miners can collude, risking the costs of Proof of Work, what stops collusion in Proof of Stake which costs nothing?

Because of the supply cap, I'm with the opinion that Bitcoin will stop being in beta only "once the fee market is supporting the hash market".


POS has its problems too, it depends on trusted-third-party checkpoints.

What did he miss? He just said he didn't miss anything, and articulated in a much better manner the situation than you did. His post history is also much better, to the point they're not going to be wasting any more time if you just continue trolling incoherently.

Take the trolling, and the debates away, Bitcoin is still in beta, and still an experiment that could fail. None actually knows which design-decision is right. The Core developers took a design-decision, the Cash community split from the network, became an altcoin, and took theirs.

But, it is of my opinion that blocks remain to be regulated for the security, and longevity of the network.

I didn't miss anything.

Your point (which was incorrect) was that miners would lose FIAT revenue even if the transaction fees went up a HUGE amount. To make this false point, you pretended a huge crash in fiat exchange rate (that may or may not happen), a huge increase in fees per transaction (that may or may not happen) and even given those attempts you STILL failed to demonstrate an actual loss for the remaining miners.

My point was that any increase at all in fees (regardless of whether it was $0.01 or $99.20) would result in an INCREASE in BTC revenue for the miners that don't shut off their equipment, and that even your extreme examples still result in fiat profit.  In reality, it is possible that the remaining miners might encounter a temporary loss of FIAT value.  It's difficult (impossible?) to know ahead of time exactly what the exchange rate will be, or what the average transaction fee will be, or what the transaction backlog will be. However, they will certainly encounter in INCREASE in BTC.

If 60% (or 70%, or 80%, or whatever arbitrary number you feel like you want to pick) of the hash power were to suddenly shut off, it would reduce the total number of blocks per day that the USERS see solved, but it would have no effect at all on how many blocks per day the remaining miners are paid for.  The block subsidy revenue (in BTC) for the remaining miners would be completely unchanged.  The total revenue (in BTC) for the remaining miners would go up (or down) with any change in transaction fees per block. Whether this change in total revenue (in FIAT) is positive or negative depends on how much the transaction fees per block change and how much the FIAT exchange rate changes.

Then, once the normal difficulty adjustments return the system to 2,016 blocks per fortnight, block subsidy revenue (in BTC) for the remaining miners would increase significantly, and the transaction fees would return to equilibrium.


This is an excellent idea.  I think I'm done watching this thread.  I'll remove it from my watchlist.

He's implying that 70% slower block time would increase congestion to the point of exponentially increasing fees. Not only is his rate of fee increase unreasonable, but he's not accounting for changes in fiat value.

Let's stop feeding the troll...

And why will transaction fees go to $100? That would imply the price of bitcoin went up too, but if it goes down, then transaction fee in fiat value will also go down.

You think about it too. Jihan Wu is the largest miner, and producer of mining gear, of course he won't care if the network centralizes towards him. He WANTS it to centralized towards him as soon as possible.


Franky1 Solution helps the miners earn more profits from transaction fees , so they remain profitable and financial interests/support remain with btc not toward BCH or other ASICS friendly networks.
LN steals transaction fees from BTC for it's offchain network, it is definitely not the solution for the miners profit margin anyway.
That is why the miners are colluding behind your backs preparing to switch networks at one of the next halvings,
because the majority are ignoring their financial concerns and they plan on staying profitable with or without btc.
And when you think about , would you really do any different if you were in their shoes.