Topic: Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt? (Read 2194 times)

Well we can't have a hybrid Bitcoin, period. If they want to fork it it's their choice and list it as an Altcoin. We can't have two captains in the same boat.

Because the Bitcoin developers are Core developers, the rest are just copying the software and adding a couple of lines and somehow managing to fuck up in the small amount of crap they add.



This is why BU is already dead. The money is in the coders, not on some dumb miner with a hashrate monopoly.

Yes, I see now what I was not accounting for.

So simply, you are saying that when you have a slight advantage of hash over your
nearest competitors, that slight amount actually has a compounding effect that allows
that advantaged miner the "ability in theory" to get all 2016 blocks.

So, what this really means is that the term "difficultly" and "difficultly adjustment"
really is incorrect as it applies to the mechanism of mining. "Difficultly" in this sense is
a "re-balancing of the scale". Is it not a literal "increased level of burdensome work".
The work is always the same (in theory), but the competitors hashes is what is really
changing over time, thus why they are "competing against each other and not the difficulty".

I think I understand now what I was overlooking.
(If what I'm have now stated is correct.)

Thanks for showing and explaining what I was missing.

Different exchanges will call one bitcoin and the the other bitcoin core or bitcoin unlimited. I don't think it matters at all. If we could have everything all in one big package that'd be the best.

segwit fixes tx malleability..?..?.  im laughing

p.s.
people need to voluntarily move funds to new keypairs to disarm their own funds and own signatures from being used in a malleated tx.

malicious users will stick to native tx's and continue doing malleated tx's = problem not solved or fixed

even funnier.. LN doesnt need it..
the simple fact that in a LN. its a 2 co-signer multisig.

each co signer sees the stripped tx and signs it. they can check and double check the tx and see if its malleated.
and if it happens to slip through..

the innocent party is not then going to agree to sign a second non malleated tx just so the malicious person can double spend.
thus LN, just by being a co-signer, double check concept.. mitigates malleability.

nope its not that predictable

ok


antpool has 565peta 20
slushpool 207peta 12
bitfury has 350peta 12
btc.top has 232peta11
f2pool has 428peta 11

as you can see based on hash power you would expect f2pool to be nearer to 17 not 11
and slush should be nearer 10 not 12


difficulty is not adjust by hashrate... just time it took for 2016 blocks..
EG i could make 1 million pools all with say 20peta each... knowing over 2 weeks they have not solved a block.

and have no actual bearing on the speed the other pools make blocks
the difficult wont change differently if im just running them pools or not.. they have no impact on other pools. even if there is now an extra 20mill pta "network hash"

.
how the difficulty is measured,
imagine its measured over 4 blocks(simple maths)
if block A was made in 9:30
if block B was made in 9:30
if block C was made in 9:30
if block D was made in 9:30

then the difficulty would say that they were made ~5% too fast. so adjust 5% more harder difficulty is implied (technically 10% to counter the 5% gain already made vs the 4 blocks yet to come that need to be 10:30.. to hopefully average the 8 blocks 10:00

remember block A solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block B solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block C solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block D solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.


in theory maybe. but other things are in play too.
more blocks could have been solved by antpool more often or even by any pool more often but it gets orphaned off and seconds later something else is there taking the glory.
pools cold take advantage of spv/empty block mining to get a few seconds advantage (this actually helps more than pure hashrate)
also by rlaying the block out faster can shave off time compared to trying to hash a few seconds to take the glory

oh and umm.. right now there are way MORE than 20 pools.. but you dont see them as they dont get to be seconds faster then some pools.
thus the actual "network hashrate" is bigger then you think

sounds like it does.

don't know -- probably nothing, but afaik, BU is compatible with segwit...also BU doesn't seek to be the only implementation or be in control,
its main goal is EC... so those issues dont have to be solved by BU per se.  there's segwit, flextran, or other bitcoin implementations.

already have. Those lines of codes are to fix Transaction malleability. Do you agree that needs to fixed? IF so, what is BU doing about it?


 

well , it is thousands of lines of code and modifies the structure of transactions and blocks in many ways.

EC basically just removes the block limit (which was originally a spam filter) and lets the miners use
'Nakamoto Consensus' as per the whitepaper.

so... really up to you how you want to label it.  Draw your own conclusions.

radical? go on..... im all ears. Lets hear these RADICAL changes. I wonder if you consider EC Radical! jesus christ.. who are you people?

Your avatar is that retard who was amazed BITCOINSSSS have any values. Are you actually him? Because you question is just as retarded. BTC is BTC  and BTU  is a shitcoin. period.

But it DOES mean to expect 1109 blocks for A and 907 block for B, it is just that
since luck is involved it will be close to those numbers. Could be 1078/938, or 1176/840
or whatever, but it will always tend down to "1109/907" though.

I think the issue is that on the AVERAGE it IS linear. But in real time at any given moment,
it could be anything, even 2015/1. Your comments ignore mining through time, right?
And that is why we have a misunderstanding?




But, the addition of B,C,D will affect Pool A's work after the next difficultly adjustment.
The newly adjustment difficultly will make Pool A's 500petas weaker than the prior difficulty.




I understand that. I just don't undesatnd why you would say that Pool A could still get
2016 when more pools enter that are close to their hash power. In thoery, over time
and averaged Pool A should not be able to get close to 2016 blocks, and should lose
more so tend down to an average around 504 block. It might be 623/539/445/409.
But, 623/539/445/409 should average to 504 for Pool A. Anything over 504 is luck
(ignoring that Pool A has a few petas more than B,C,D, I state this in general).


So am I correct here or am I still misunderstanding what you are intending to mean?

just to add.
dont hold your coins in an exchange/third party service.

use a wallet where you own the private key.
coins are in laymans terms attached to the private key soif you import that key into whatever client there is. you have the coins.

if you just have them on an exchange. that exchange may decide not to give you the other split side because you only deposited on one side.(even before an activation)

so keep them off an exchange and you can then have freedom of choice no matter what happens

infact the exchange announcement of naming BU an alt if core pull a contentious trigger. is meaningless in regards to the naming...
by admitting they will accept the coin (no matter what exchanges name it) means the coins have utility.(they are spendable)

what would have been different is if the announcement would of said.. no matter what they would only accept core. then the dynamic implementations wont have much utility.

---

i know your looking for a economics answer of BUY X sell Y.. but no one can predict future speculation without a time machine

Oh!. Thank you Mr. Jonald for clearing that out. My friends are also getting worried when we are talking about this.
 I think there will be a big dump if this questions like this will not be answered correctly or simply to where some investors could understand it. Even small holders should know this.

nothing to worry about.

It's likely there will be no network split at all.

if there is, simply hang onto your coins and the market will quickly sort it out -- your coins will be valid on both chains.

Dang! This is RawDog's thread and yet franky and Agent are going deep. I got worked up reading all those comments and yet I didn't understand a thing. I just kept on reading.  

So if BU wins, will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

the 2016 blocks has nothing much to do with hashrate.

for instance.
pool A could have 500petahash and pool B has 480peta - not that important to state this and you will see why

this would give A a few second advantage..
however. this does NOT mean expect 1109 blocks for A...... 907 for pool B
infact
pool A could be lucky enough that EVERY block which A makes is just 2 seconds faster than pool B
meaning

A gets ALL 2016 blocks.

then if there was a split.
they are both making blocks at nearly the same times on 2 chains. yet the activation 2016 blockcount says that A has 100% power..

it does not mean that because A has 100% block winning that B will take hours to make blocks.

---

as for the network hash rate

now imagine there was pool C with 480peta
and imagine there was pool D with 480peta

this changes nothing for pool A. pool A still does the same work at the same time with the same 500peta.

but B,C,D are all just unlucky.

the network hashrate going from 980peta to 1,940peta again does not affect pool A's work in the slightest.

all it means is now there are 3 competitors agains A so A may not always get so lucky.
but again this does not mean suddenly A is only making ~500 blocks.. A could still get all 2016.

this is what has been known since 2012 as the risks of a 51% attack. where one pool just has the little edge against the rest to be able to potentially control all the blocks produced.

Core doesn't want to branch off into a new currency.  Just because the new BU coin will be given to Bitcoin owners doesn't mean that it's not a new coin.  It is a separate coin which is different to the original Bitcoin and should not be confused with it.  Reasonably, all major exchanges seem to agree with me.

I understand this, but did I contradict this in a prior statement?

But, you do agree that there are "different pools doing their OWN work. competing
against each other" but their independent correct answers is based on the prior 2016
block collective, that is used for difficultly to scale back to a 10 minute average, right?

So for example, if a pool 1 has 99% hash and pool 2 has 1% hash of the total network
hash, and Pool 1 (99%) "drops off" the network, Pool 2 (1%) is still trying to find the
10 minute average block based on a nonce/difficultly that accounts for the total
network hash prior to the Pool1 (99%) "drop off". So Pool 2 has no competition
and they will "always find the blocks first now", but it will take them much longer
on average to find the blocks in general.

In the above para, if Pool 1 (99%) dropped off, then it will take Pool 2 (1%) about
144 days in order to make 144 blocks (1 block per 24h). To get to the difficultly
adjustment, it would take at maximum 2016 days, which is 5.5 years.

Are we in agreement, or am I still missing your point?