Topic: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC. - page 26. (Read 64924 times)

1% hash security cannot split away from the 99% hash security, and hold a higher valuation. 

I guess they would need to define what constitutes a network split.  Conceivably 1% could keep mining, fork their own PoW to
adjust difficult and and create some kind of peon coin.  But even then, who knows, it could get popular later.

He hasn't said anything he will feel he will need to back track on and the community let's him get away with lying deceit bribery coercion ignorance greed malice etc on a daily basis so he's not going to get held to anything here.

Loaded fair play to you man, this is really putting your money where your mouth is, and that takes balls.  Hats off.  i have a very small amount of bitcoin and i wouldn't have the balls to do this with them.  

This sounds like a great deal for both of us.  I look forward to ironing out the exact details and terms.  I'm super busy for the next 48 hours,  but would love to connect after that.

If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore?

That maybe what Loaded thinks, but is not true.

As i have shown in my example situation of 99% / 1% hash power. Does Loaded still think he can win?
(i know it wont happen like that)

If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore?

Here's my attempt at making the terms of my bet with RHavar unambiguous:

1. A "network upgrade event" is defined to have occurred if the blockchain (or one side of the blockchain should a split occur) contains a block larger than 1 MB and at least 72 blocks have been built on top of it.  These blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.

2. Conditions where RHavar wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs, resulting in a blockchain split, and at least 2100 blocks are built on the "small block" side of the split (i.e, the blockchain branch that contains no blocks larger than 1 MB) within 4 months (120 days) of the splitting point.  The blocks must be built using the current PoW algorithm and with no reset or fork-based reduction in the difficulty.
  
3.  Conditions where Peter R wins the bet:

   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and no blockchain split occurs.
   - A "network upgrade event" occurs and the blockchain contains at least one block larger than 1 MB and 2100 full-difficulty regular-PoW blocks are not built on the small-block chain within the 120 day window.
   - Should the minority chain become unusable for whatever reason prior to reaching 2100 regular-PoW/full-difficulty blocks, thereby requiring a change in PoW or a reset or reduction in difficulty in order to keep it alive, then Peter R wins the bet provided the big-block side of the blockchain contains a block larger than 1 MB.    

4. Conditions for a draw (Peter R and RHavar receive their wagers back)

   - No "network upgrade event" occurs between now and 31 December 2017.  

Well , not exactly.  OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree.
Roger presumably thinks otherwise.

The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.  

I guess loaded wants to test if ver puts the money where is mouth is
verry simple notting more notthing less.

BU as it exists today

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. You're stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

Let me ask you a question just to satisfy my own curiosity and discover the reason for your recent "business transaction" proposition to Ver. You are "loaded". I assume you live in a beautiful home with all the modern appointments. Surely you must have fine automobiles at your disposal and take worldwide vacations with the same frequency that other people change their underwear. In essence, you want for nothing. You're stake in the "business transaction" you're proposing is worth upwards of $60 million. With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

From my perspective at least, this is not a bet, it's a business transaction. My motivations are 90% profit and 10% because I do not foresee BU as it exists today succeeding with the lack of code review and still unsolved EC divergence. Nothing prevents a miner from switching to the Core chain and orphaning the entire BU chain if it becomes profitable to do so.

As for big vs small, I supported 2MB last year when there was no working implementation of LN. Today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go. I believe that the BU miners are not looking at the bigger picture. On chain fees can continue to rise even while a large number of transactions move to LN. There is no issue paying a $10 fee to open a reusable channel, while the same fee for a single transaction is extreme. SW already offers 2MB, the only difference seems to be where the signatures are stored.

I put him on ignore a while ago.