It's very simple (I know you're not capable of presenting things simply)
Big hodlings of whales does not = economic majority.
Economic majority = the number of economic actors multiplied by their hodlings. Because Metcalffe effect.
Now please, be quiet
Topic: What is UASF exactly? (Read 1472 times)
...but the whales just don't have the network effect to make it happen...
That was already discussed at the link you were told to read, but refuse to read.
And the true irony of it all?
iamnotback is making (one of his) conclusions the same as mine, but for the wrong reasons.
Changing the Proof of Work is the ultimate answer to BU, but the whales just don't have the network effect to make it happen. Who's going to accept the PoW algo they choose, if it benefits them and their rich buddies? Not the real economic majority.
iamnotback is making (one of his) conclusions the same as mine, but for the wrong reasons.
Changing the Proof of Work is the ultimate answer to BU, but the whales just don't have the network effect to make it happen. Who's going to accept the PoW algo they choose, if it benefits them and their rich buddies? Not the real economic majority.
Wrong
I'm making a point which renders your 9 page "argument" null and void, and you therefore cannot refute it.
I'm making a point which renders your 9 page "argument" null and void, and you therefore cannot refute it.
Carlton I am not going to re-explain what you were told to read.
You're building erroneous strawmen. And I am not going to allow you waste my time on your confusion.
It isn't my job to untangle the recesses of your discombobulated conceptual misunderstandings.
You're building erroneous strawmen. And I am not going to allow you waste my time on your confusion.
It isn't my job to untangle the recesses of your discombobulated conceptual misunderstandings.
How will the whales shortsell BTU if their BTC is already at the exchanges? 
They must withdraw before the fork, the exchanges aren't going to just gift them their BTU doublings when the blockchain forks.
Again: How, then, will these whales get their BTC to the exchanges to shortsell with, in those circumstances? BTC chain won't work under BU hashpower attack, therefore they won't be able to
Again: Which exchange can the whales trust in those circumstances? It's a very dicey move
They must withdraw before the fork, the exchanges aren't going to just gift them their BTU doublings when the blockchain forks.
Again: How, then, will these whales get their BTC to the exchanges to shortsell with, in those circumstances? BTC chain won't work under BU hashpower attack, therefore they won't be able to
Again: Which exchange can the whales trust in those circumstances? It's a very dicey move
I [didn't] know all these things [and I still don't].
Backsplaining.
What you'rey I always failing to appreciate...
Okay it's a Freudian slip...
...is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.
Oh you mean literally piddling 1000s of BTC otherwise known as less than 0.1% of the whales' capital.
The tail really does wag the dog in your reality.
If there was/is big money in exchanges, the whales own them.
Details do matter.
That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective
That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective
Indeed. The perspective that I am wasting my time talking to a
Misinformed people recognize when they've been corrected. Stupid people insist.
I know all these things.
What you're failing to appreciate is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.
Where are these whales going to deposit to sell or short? Coinbase? Shapeshift? BTC-e? Bitsquare? MPeX itself? The potential for losing in all sorts of ways, both internal to those exchanges or by external forces are too risky in a post hardfork cirmcumstance.
And how, oh how, will the whales get the BTC to an exchange, when BU miners are actively DoS'ing the BTC chain, as they've stated is their intention?
Details do matter.
That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective
What you're failing to appreciate is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.
Where are these whales going to deposit to sell or short? Coinbase? Shapeshift? BTC-e? Bitsquare? MPeX itself? The potential for losing in all sorts of ways, both internal to those exchanges or by external forces are too risky in a post hardfork cirmcumstance.
And how, oh how, will the whales get the BTC to an exchange, when BU miners are actively DoS'ing the BTC chain, as they've stated is their intention?
Details do matter.
That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective
Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.
Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".
Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway
Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.
So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.
You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.
Apologise.
You will need to apologize after you read what you were told to read:
Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.
If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).
If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).
And realize that the whales' can kill the fork because they already own tokens in both forks from the inception.
And that is what makes it different from launching an altcoin.
Details matter.
Now I've got important work to do. So please stop putting your foot in your mouth at my expense.
Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.
Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".
Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway
Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.
So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.
You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.
Apologise.
I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it?
Yes, and no. Obviously Bitcoin can't fork without miners in its current state, therefore at least *some* signalling is required. The more the better.If yes, then wouldn't that be the exact definition of "centralization"?
No.What it basically does is that it sets a flag day at which the miner/pool would produce Segwit blocks. This proposal does require wast support from the users & economy to work though. Generally it seems that this support already exists. All >= 0.13.1 Bitcoin Core nodes are compatible with it, and it should be compatible with any other existing Segwit implementations.
Notes:
- This proposal is in its early stages and is still being worked on / fixed.
- It is not within Bitcoin Core, but exists as a *patch* from an unknown third party on Github.
I wonder how many people will be satisfied to run code that were committed by a unknown third party? We know code are scrutinized by peer
review and nothing will be accepted, if it contains serious flaws or code that would compromise Bitcoin, but people want to blame someone if
something goes wrong... On the other side, if good code is anonymous, it could go through without all of this drama.
Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.
Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".
Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).
Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).
The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.
The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.
What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?
Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.
If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).
Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.
Bwrahahaha.
Without a longest-chain rule then consensus is impossible and double-spends are trivial. Dude you've entirely forgotten or never learned Bitcoin 101.
Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told
Talking about Bitcoin doesn't make you important. Especially when you're incompetent.
I wasn't disrespectful to you, nor even frank about your technological incompetence until you started this authoritarian condescending ad hominem. You started this unnecessary and useless acrimony. You don't have any control over my competency and therefor my importance. Democracy and politics is dead or dying. Meritocracy is what wins now.
Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).
The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.
The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.
What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?
Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.
Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told
You guys seem to think the UASF is controlled by the hashrate of the system, but I think I've argued quite convincingly else where, that sufficiently organized whales are superior and are the actual economic majority.
BIP148 UASF will be determined by 1 thing alone, midnight of November 15th 2017. Nothing to do with hashrate (you're right there) and nothing to do with whales (where you're wrong)
Please don't reply, you're a waste of time and space
Carlton you're
Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).
The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.
UASF is clearly an effort to re-define what Bitcoin is.
Only the whales (if sufficiently organized) will decide which protocol goes up in price and which one goes to 0.
If the whales are not united, then maybe BIP148 will have some relevancy but it is a power vacuum of democracy thus it will be manipulated or we will have chaos.
We are trying to end voting and democracy, because they don't work. Instead idealistically we want a meritocracy where nobody has control (not even the economic majority), but it is not known if that is feasible (most believe it is not). Satoshi's PoW is flawed and that is why it is devolving like this.
UASF is probably a new solution to solve the current problem and end the war between miners and others. It is a proposal and is still in the research stage, perhaps it is a solution for segwit. Everyone is tired of the current situation, so I hope it will be a good solution, and the fight will be over. Everything is back to normal and bitcoin continues to lead. There are so many altcoins boom over the past, this shows that bitcoin are more competitors. That is a disturbing thing.
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
True words sir i agree. I only ask myself if Satoshi predicted very specific cases like big miners coalition to attack the network.Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
We will see how it will go in reality.
Well, if that was true, Satoshi was happy with it. BIPs in the past were activated this way, while Satoshi was still around to object, which he did not.
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
True words sir i agree. I only ask myself if Satoshi predicted very specific cases like big miners coalition to attack the network.Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
We will see how it will go in reality.
UASF is clearly an effort to re-define what Bitcoin is.
From Bitcoin Paper by Great Satoshi Nakamoto Himself here is how consensus in original Bitcoin which is based on Proof-of-Work should be established. Miners use their CPU power to establish it. Quote:
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
From Bitcoin Paper by Great Satoshi Nakamoto Himself here is how consensus in original Bitcoin which is based on Proof-of-Work should be established. Miners use their CPU power to establish it. Quote:
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.
Jump to: