My current thoughts on this matter are:
1. Mining nodes = blockchain builders and source of new coins
2. Business nodes = coin utility enablers by supplying goods or services
3. User nodes = source of economic activity by moving coins
1 + 2 are the nodes that in consensus dictate the protocol. 3 either follow or become unsynced. May as well become SPV wallets in the long run.
Thats my two sats for now, but don't worry - it won't confirm as its not worthy of inclusion due to the transaction fee.
Topic: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters (Read 3472 times)
And don't confuse users (people exchanging coins for value in the market) with nodes again...
^ this.
nodes are simply relays, they don't have much power.
users have economic power, which trumps everything.
In the event of a split, nodes won't be the factor because if there is any ambiguity, SPV will check some reference block, and
users will stay on the chain they want to stay on.
Indeed, franky1 is AGAIN confusing both.
Of course, users use nodes. But users market weight is not proportional to the NUMBER OF NODES.
A big exchange has one single node, but has a bloody heavy market weight. I'm running a node too, and my market weight is essentially zero. The 5 times a year I buy something with bitcoin is entirely negligible. Do you really think that my node should count as much as a big exchange's node ? Do you think that my node is as heavy as the Winkelvoss brothers' node they may use ?
There are about 4000 bitcoin nodes. My weight is 1/4000 of "nodes". I don't control $5 million dollars of bitcoin (at all - I'm only using it as a currency, and very rarely so). I'm maybe even going to set up a second node, for the fun of it. Do you think that my vote should count twice ?
THAT is the reason why proof of work is used as a consensus "voting" system, and not "proof of node".
Users only need ONE single node to connect their wallets to.
dymanics has the hard consensus of nodes and pools. which means NODES can vote against pools.
Here you go again. If pools want A, and they have a serious $$$ stake in A, and the currently active nodes want B, what stops pools to fire up 3 times more nodes voting A for a tiny fraction of $$$ ?because that centralised mindset is just handing a hotpotato around nodes itself own...
not the nodes of merchants who have orphaned that block.
not the nodes of users who have orphaned that block.
pools can sybil themselves all they like.. end result is they are just playing with themselves in their own room.. while the rest of the network are getting good blocks from the other 19 pools that are following rules acceptable to the community.
Did you still not understand that proof of work was invented to avoid vote by node, because the above Sybil attack is far too easy ?
bitcoin doesnt just have one layer of protection. it has atleast 10.
nodes, coin holders that dont run nodes, and pools.. work in unison of consensus (symbiotic relationship of consent) to agree on a set of rules.
EG a low node count cannot change what pools accept
EG a low pool count cannot change what node accept
a low node or low pool count cannot change what coin holders accept
real consensus is about majority of the community
your thinking too 2 dimensionally about 1 security feature and expressing its flaw.
but your not seeing the bigger 3 dimensional overview of the other security features
And don't confuse users (people exchanging coins for value in the market) with nodes again...
P.S stop thinking that nodes are not users. because your missing the big picture legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
And don't confuse users (people exchanging coins for value in the market) with nodes again...
^ this.
nodes are simply relays, they don't have much power.
users have economic power, which trumps everything.
In the event of a split, nodes won't be the factor because if there is any ambiguity, SPV will check some reference block, and
users will stay on the chain they want to stay on.
dymanics has the hard consensus of nodes and pools. which means NODES can vote against pools.
Here you go again. If pools want A, and they have a serious $$$ stake in A, and the currently active nodes want B, what stops pools to fire up 3 times more nodes voting A for a tiny fraction of $$$ ?
Did you still not understand that proof of work was invented to avoid vote by node, because the above Sybil attack is far too easy ?
And don't confuse users (people exchanging coins for value in the market) with nodes again...
you argue
dynamics has the hard consensus of nodes and pools. which means NODES can vote against pools.
its CORE that have bypassed nodes consent(going soft).
i think your more angry at pools because of something that core actually caused. but not willing to admit a choice core made by going soft that backfired.
you wont admit core went wrong by going soft and giving pools the only vote because you want to remain ademant that core are kings and gods.
your also thinking that devs are immortal and will be around for the next 100 years and bitcoin cannot survive without your special immortant team of kings.
wake up to your own fairy tale your clinging onto
devs do come and go, devs do switch teams.
dvs move onto different projects all the time.. so devoting your desire towards a dev, instead of the longevity of whats right for bitcoin and the community is your own failure
Nonsense. Mining is centralized by "do this, or else meet my hashrate".
but then slap your own argument down withUltimately they are easily replaceable,
so which is it. dynamics has the hard consensus of nodes and pools. which means NODES can vote against pools.
its CORE that have bypassed nodes consent(going soft).
i think your more angry at pools because of something that core actually caused. but not willing to admit a choice core made by going soft that backfired.
you wont admit core went wrong by going soft and giving pools the only vote because you want to remain ademant that core are kings and gods.
your also thinking that devs are immortal and will be around for the next 100 years and bitcoin cannot survive without your special immortant team of kings.
wake up to your own fairy tale your clinging onto
devs do come and go, devs do switch teams.
dvs move onto different projects all the time.. so devoting your desire towards a dev, instead of the longevity of whats right for bitcoin and the community is your own failure
commanded by a mining cartel
lol
core are getting desparate to force segwit.
1. take nodes vote away
2. take pools vote away
3. give full control to core.
wak up to your own hypocrisy. if only one implementation (core) is running.. then there is no decentralisation.
core need to man up and realise
if they know nodes vote wont activate segwit(thus needing to bypass node vote by going soft) they know users dont want it
if they know pools vote wont activate (thus needing to blackmail with PoW change) they know pools dont want it
they should just instead of bribe(fee discount), or tweaking the elections(going soft),or blackmail(PoW algo change) they should just try something different the community will accept
Nonsense. Mining is centralized and they will be able to unilaterally change parameters at will with BUcoin. They are jeopardizing bitcoin development by "do this, or else meet my hashrate". Ultimately they are easily replaceable, devs with years of experience in the field aren't. Cooperate or enjoy mining an altcoin.
BUcoin is dead. Nobody will use inferior software commanded by a mining cartel when you got world class coders working in Core with a new non-centralized mining algo.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
Then why is Windows still so popular?
Window is not a cryptocurrency, our wealth is not on the line.
So this BTU thing causes the bitcoin price to decrease. 
I`ve never been vary familiar with all this block size,scaling,LN,blocktream shit,but it`s obvious that some people want to profit from destroying bitcoin and replacing it with some fake altcoin pretending to be btc.
I`ve never been vary familiar with all this block size,scaling,LN,blocktream shit,but it`s obvious that some people want to profit from destroying bitcoin and replacing it with some fake altcoin pretending to be btc.
Satoshi had no block limit in the initial version and was later talking about increasing block limit gradually on this very forum. Bitcoin allowing bigger blocks isn't exactly "a new altcoin".
I do agree that it is rather bizarre that BU supporters talk a lot about decentralization, but they are centralizing a great deal of power in the hands of a few mining pool operators and major miners, and putting miners in control of protocol options like blocksize rather than the dev community with inputs from everyone. That's a mistake. Miners are not a neutral party in the bitcoin ecosystem, and putting them in charge disempowers everyone else.
What are devs loosing if they make something wrong? Fame.
What are miners loosing? Everything.
Miners are not neutral. Miners which invested in Asics are the only party of the system which looses everything in case of a failure. Devs keep their skills, investors and exchanges trade altcoins, I, as a bitcoin journalist write about other cryptocurrencies. But Bitcoin-Asic miners keep nothing. If there is one entity in bitcoin I trust to act responsible for the system, than it are miners. This is the basic incentive structure of Bitcoin: everyone can make profit by acting evil except the miners. They just loose money.
If you want to go on crusade against the miners, which are the most important defining invention of Bitcoin - I'm ok. If there is one truth in Bitcoin than that you are poised to loose the fight. If this breaks Bitcoin for you, it was broken since the beginning, but you just didn't realize because you never really thought about it.
BUcoin is dead. Nobody will use inferior software commanded by a mining cartel when you got world class coders working in Core with a new non-centralized mining algo.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
Then why is Windows still so popular?
commanded by a mining cartel
lol
core are getting desparate to force segwit.
1. take nodes vote away
2. take pools vote away
3. give full control to core.
wak up to your own hypocrisy. if only one implementation (core) is running.. then there is no decentralisation.
core need to man up and realise
if they know nodes vote wont activate segwit(thus needing to bypass node vote by going soft) they know users dont want it
if they know pools vote wont activate (thus needing to blackmail with PoW change) they know pools dont want it
they should just instead of bribe(fee discount), or tweaking the elections(going soft),or blackmail(PoW algo change) they should just try something different the community will accept
BUcoin is dead. Nobody will use inferior software commanded by a mining cartel when you got world class coders working in Core with a new non-centralized mining algo.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
Miners can be easily replaced, coders can't. Can't wait to dump BUcoin.
bu or any other dynamic implementations have NOT set any threatening deadlines
and NOT added anything that would intentionally banscore nodes off the network
and NOT gone 'full wetard' to even threaten removing PoW.
(by core refusing to add a few lines to be part of the peer network that could be dynamic, they will banscore themselves off the network by rejecting majority consensus)
core only want their own TIER network and have gone 'full wetard' to try getting it
SEGWIT rely on ONLY pools vote
dynamics implementations needs nodes AND pools, otherwise nodes will just orphan off the blocks in 3 seconds and stick with things as they are now(as displayed last month).
CORE actively and intentionally bypassed node consensus by going soft.
core have all the ban hammers,
core set the deadlines
core set threats of pool orphaning with bip9,
core set more threats with UASF
core set more threats with changing PoW
it is core that dont want community free choice.. its either get into segwit or have bitcoin ruined into something no longer bitcoin
(total rewrite, different keypair types different mempool strange formation, different full tx data formation, different tier node topology, different 'mining algo)
however dynamic implementations are compatible with several different implementation 'brands' using just a few lines of code.
set no limit
set no agenda,
dont have zealous banscores
havnt threatened anything.
they are just plodding along for the last two years letting natural consensus do its thing.
and NOT added anything that would intentionally banscore nodes off the network
and NOT gone 'full wetard' to even threaten removing PoW.
(by core refusing to add a few lines to be part of the peer network that could be dynamic, they will banscore themselves off the network by rejecting majority consensus)
core only want their own TIER network and have gone 'full wetard' to try getting it
SEGWIT rely on ONLY pools vote
dynamics implementations needs nodes AND pools, otherwise nodes will just orphan off the blocks in 3 seconds and stick with things as they are now(as displayed last month).
CORE actively and intentionally bypassed node consensus by going soft.
core have all the ban hammers,
core set the deadlines
core set threats of pool orphaning with bip9,
core set more threats with UASF
core set more threats with changing PoW
it is core that dont want community free choice.. its either get into segwit or have bitcoin ruined into something no longer bitcoin
(total rewrite, different keypair types different mempool strange formation, different full tx data formation, different tier node topology, different 'mining algo)
however dynamic implementations are compatible with several different implementation 'brands' using just a few lines of code.
set no limit
set no agenda,
dont have zealous banscores
havnt threatened anything.
they are just plodding along for the last two years letting natural consensus do its thing.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Ever heard of Bilderberg group you stupid fuck?
Are you addressing the OP or the last poster (me) ?
Ever heard of Bilderberg group you stupid fuck?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Right... You can use computational power to do this, but it is exponentially cheaper than mining, totally outcompeting those who play the game honestly. If taken to extremes, and everyone starts throwing massive computing power to game the system, then your supposed PoS system turns into PoW indirectly, which kind of defeats the point of PoS in the first place.
Everything is cheaper than ASICS Mining, the N@S Lie states that no addition resources will be required.
Everything in the universe takes energy, lol. The point is is doesn't take MUCH energy. You're missing the forest for the trees.
As to why it hasn't been exploited, i think it was -- maybe luke jr. or someone attacked a PoS coin and caused a huge re-org,
but i'd have to look that up.
Could you both stop the insults, you do a disservice to both your causes. Kiklo, if didn't care why do you keep responding? Based on all the stuff going on in this forum and reddit, I think the best coarse of action is do nothing until a true consensus can be reached between the sides.
I don't care what he believes, but if anyone insults me, I will trade insults until they collapse from physical exhaustion, if they continue.
In the real world one of us would have already beat the other senseless and the discussion would have been over.
Plus others can gleam insight from the links, I posted. But like I said , I am done with conversing with him, if he is done conversing with me.
I’ll take the high road; we can agree to disagree.
I’ll ask you nicely to go away and stop posting in my thread, thanks.
Please avoid getting into a heavy prolongated slagfest. It only results in the mods exercising the use of their heavy hand.
Could you both stop the insults, you do a disservice to both your causes. Kiklo, if didn't care why do you keep responding? Based on all the stuff going on in this forum and reddit, I think the best coarse of action is do nothing until a true consensus can be reached between the sides.
I don't care what he believes, but if anyone insults me, I will trade insults until they collapse from physical exhaustion, if they continue.
In the real world one of us would have already beat the other senseless and the discussion would have been over.
Plus others can gleam insight from the links, I posted. But like I said , I am done with conversing with him, if he is done conversing with me.
Could you both stop the insults, you do a disservice to both your causes. Kiklo, if didn't care why do you keep responding? Based on all the stuff going on in this forum and reddit, I think the best coarse of action is do nothing until a true consensus can be reached between the sides.
Jump to: