Topic: The mining cartel play games with the network right now (Read 1034 times)

Well…that’s even more cheap than what I’m getting charged on Xapo when I make transaction. Xapo charges around $5 for transaction (I mean high priority). I don’t really use my blockchain.info wallet. And for the main thing we are here to discuss, I will say it’s really badJihan and his group are doing such thing. But whatever their plan is, it won’t work out for them.

Segwit is about to activate. That should immediately alleviate some of the pain over fees, unless Bitmain plays games and immediately moves a lot of hash rate to BCH. That could exacerbate problems by lengthening block time. But more importantly, Segwit will enable important scaling optimizations like Schnorr aggregation, and it brings us much closer to a working Lightning Network. The future is bright, but massive upgrades should take time. Some growing pains are expected.

The contribution of BCC is to promote the innovation of BTC. BTC is too old to move and BCC is a wolf. If BTC can’t solve its problems such as high transaction fee and long transaction time as quickly as it could, it will be a loser.

It's very interesting to see these core premises from the whitepaper tested. On one hand, what constitutes "validity"? If consensus rules are adjusted (i.e. a hard fork), is the chain ruled out from being Bitcoin? On the other hand, the strongest chain is required to be the valid Bitcoin chain as well. It's all a question, I guess, of what consensus rules the market believes are acceptable to change. Maybe the market believes hard forks are unacceptable and small blocks will prevail. Maybe not. Time will tell. Things are definitely getting interesting, between the Bitcoin Cash fork and proposed Segwit2x fork.

I don't have a problem with the network splitting, per se. What I have a problem with is miners leveraging their hash power to push users into forking when they wouldn't otherwise. And also, from an incentive standpoint re: Metcalfe's Law, I think we are all incentivized to avoid significantly splitting the network, since that would be detrimental for Bitcoin's network effect... if that's possible. It may not be.


But markets are not efficient, and users by and large may not have complete information. And what if well-backed players are manipulating the exchange markets, or manipulating the hash rate distribution? What if Bitmain really does control a majority of hash power and is playing us like a fiddle? Hash power has an effect on user expectations and actions, so we can't act like it's a simple matter of demand. It's possible that a majority of miners (or Bitmain alone) could significantly affect user choices, despite which chain they really support.

i cant believe thet there are still ppl that support Jihan

Exactly.


The chains with the most difficult hash solutions is what Bitcoin software follows....


Except even this is misleading. Because this rule doesn't matter when applied to 2 separate blockchains, which is what the BTC and BCH chains are, separate chains. So, it's all just stupid rhetoric really (and it's really extra dumb IMO)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcweVMiR1aE

This is worth a listen in the background.

The point that the Richard fella kept ramming home is pretty relevant - a small group with a Wix website managed to co opt not too far off half the Bitcoin hash rate with a copy and paste coin.

That doesn't bode well for a better put together effort. I think all the antifragile talk and 'this is actually good for Bitcoin' is hopelessly naïve.

The only people that have a problem with bitcoin splitting, are those that want to force everyone else to stay on their vision of what Bitcoin should be preventing Bitcoin being what it will subject to the built in incentive mechanism.

Bitcoin does not exist in a theoretical void, it succeeds (or fails) on merit, in the real world subject to human greed and market force. If miners choose to mine some other coin it because the incentives their are higher. Incentives come from the market. The market decides what bitcoin is. The users decide what bitcoin is. Devs are custodians of the code, miners are custodians of the hashrate, exchanges are custodians of the fiat gateways. If an established interest does not align with the interests of the users, then the users will take their 'incentive' and go elsewhere.

So yes if most users defect to a so called altcoin, then by name or otherwise, that is "bitcoin" in spirit. The coin with the most PoW hashrate, the most value, the most users. I got into bitcoin for what it represents, what it can be, how it can change what money is forever. I didn't get into it for its name.

Whilst the network itself may not be split (depending on your view of Bitcoin Cash as being part of the bitcoin network, or an alt coin). The *crypto economy* is already split: the *incentive* is split. The countless alts out their represent value that user's have decided is better placed in a particular alt coin than bitcoin (either through mining, or buying) they have removed their incentive from bitcoin and applied it elsewhere. That is what you are seeing with Bitcoin cash. So I think Bitcoin as a concept is working perfectly. If any of those alts were significantly better you would see significant capital flight, as users vote with their "incentive".

So to me Alts are a good thing. Not because I personally wish to own them, or profit from them, but because they are the competition that further pressures "Bitcoin" to be the best it can be so that end users choose it, over any alternative.

This is the ethos of bitcoin, this is why none of the established interest(s) can control any crypto, because the users can ultimately move their "incentive" elsewhere.

I think that was the idea given one native coin. How about in the context of several native coins all calling themselves "Bitcoin?" There was a point when Bitcoin users were more or less unified in their interests. Now we have large, established interests like Bitmain, Bitpay and Coinbase who have major ROI and business concerns that may not be in line with the interests of all users. One side is more or less okay with centralization and regulation ... the other is staunchly opposed to centralization and is very privacy-oriented.

It seems that these sides are diverging further and further. So, in this context is Bitcoin working? I guess so, if we don't have a problem with the network splitting into multiple networks.

I was wondering when you would crawl out from under your rock.

Where's your buddy jonald?

I figured you guys were busy with your new shitcoin, fleecing the big-block bcash fanatics 

how can jihan control bitcoin if he decided to not mine bitcoin, and instead mine an altcoin...

your propaganda makes no sense

i do laugh at you lot

but loosely translating your actual fear:
NOT following the BSCartel roadmap like a sheep is the biggest threat... to the BScartel's control of their chain

but if your still afraid and crying behind a pillow, ill help you out.
1. unless bitcoin cash gets accepted through merchant portals like bitpay and coinbase (many hundred thousand real world merchant shopping carts), relax.. its just an altcoin
2. if bitmain wants to mine an altcoin, let them.. that means bigger slice pie for whomever is left mining bitcoin
3. stronger hint about point one.. its more about utility than hashpower that makes a coin successful

(yes im being unbiased to avoid my posts getting deleted by the snobs of the bscartel)

To be fair if someone brags about that, then it's likely they don't really understand how things work.

If OTOH they wait until it's the strongest chain in POW terms then don't be surprised to find they are neither shill, nor sock. Just old school bitcoiners (and maybe even some newbies) patiently waiting for the inevitable.

Its getting to a point wherein if you wish to send a few dollars to someone, you need to pay more transaction fees than the money being transacted itself. Demanding higher fees with blockchain is one thing but do they really think the common Bitcoin user is ready to shell out that much for the fees? These people really need to see the bigger picture and do what needs to be done.

You can learn the easy way, or the hard way. It's up to you. Don't trust, verify.

I suspect this is the case. Lots of people don't want to move their funds and (rightfully) don't trust BCH clients not to steal their bitcoins. Most BTC doesn't move, so it follows that most BCH won't move, either.

But even if more whales were willing to move their BCH stashes to the exchanges to dump, who knows how deep Bitmain's pockets are? Rumored to control a majority of hash power, probably behind the years of spam attacks on the network, by far the biggest chip manufacturer and moving closer to a monopoly everyday? All the research into Asic Boost, too. Bitmain has a lot to lose if they fail now.

this is exactly what i was talking about a couple of days ago before the first difficulty adjustment and before they lowered it a lot. miners were mostly waiting for it to come down then go there. very funny actually, this shows exactly what they want out of bitcioncash; more money!
with the lower difficulty they rushed to mine and they mined an unbelievable amount of blocks and with its price declining and the difficulty increasing (i read somewhere it should go up 340%) they will probably stop right away too.

Bcc is nothing but just another alternative coin out there. Great for pump and dump. If there is still profit and it will stay around. BTC all the way.

We need the Bitcoin whales to step up and dump their bcash and the problem would be solved. bcash would never be more profitable than Bitcoin. There's too much bcash locked away with whales who are reluctant or afraid to move their stashes.

I always thought that central bankers, financial institutions, goverments where Bitcoin's main targets but the biggest threat comes from within.

Roger Ver, Jihan Wu and those bigblockers sheeps are the biggest threat, if Jihan controls Bitcoin than the consequences will be horrible.