Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

And no, they did not act rational. The chain has split. Unpopular outcome. Fail.

[...]

No matter what CSW did - ABC failed to prevent a very unpopular and unnecessary outcome.

I don't think this is necessarily fair. It takes two to tango. I think ABC set up the environment that encouraged the split but I don't think it's incumbent on anyone to go out of their way to prevent a split. Quite the opposite. In fact, I'm wondering when we can have our next round of jettisoning people who are trying to exploit positions of influence for their own aggrandizement.

 

[cypherblock]

I think the counterpoint to that, is that the miner should aim to create a block (size/complexity/validation time) suited to their risk profile with regards being orphaned vs increased revenue. The main point being that it is up to the miner to self-limit, in an unbounded environment.

Well first they would have to understand the SM risk, which is different than normal orphan risk. With this code (unless they switch to first seen after it validates), you could get gamma close to 100% with moderate sized blocks if you are an SM mining empty blocks. So that is a massive change.

HM releases block, well connected SM sees it and broadcasts empty block, SM block gets to most miners second but validates first. SM wins block race.

So yeah it is an increased pressure to keep blocks small from HM side. Or HM can wait till attack starts and then mine empty blocks to combat it (of course that has other implications). I just don't know if that has been thought through.

Switching to first seen block after it validates might be better approach.

(credit to Anthony DiPierro for bringing up this issue)

 

[Richy_T]

trouble brewing ?

[doublepost=1542841146][/doublepost]

Switching to first seen block after it validates might be better approach.

Miners are free to build on whichever block they want. So what does game theory say is in their best interest? If a block has validated, surely they want to start mining on top of it immediately? Maybe switching to the first-seen block when it finally validates.

Could a miner incentivize their block being accepted by including payments to other miners?

 

[cypherdoc]

i can hear the screams now; "nvm that, it's cumulative proof of work that matters!". nvm that the ABC clowns were screaming victory after just a few hours the first day of getting out ahead several blocks:

 

[AdrianX]

Doesn't that make the Selfish Mining algorithm (Eyal, Sirer) much more effective? In other words, if mining nodes use || validation, and they start mining on the first to validate block, and then they don't switch over to mining on the first seen block when it is done, then it increases the ability of a SM to win a block race.

Risk creates uncertainty, miners want to mitigate risk and maximize certainty.

It's all about average block times and the time it takes to find new blocks (difficulty plays a role as it accelerates block time while validation time is static. ) If the average block validation time is 10 seconds selfish mining would only be advantaged for blocks that are found within 10 seconds. Not many blocks would qualify.

Better data is needed to make more informed conclusions.

 

[AdrianX]

i can hear the screams now; "nvm that, it's cumulative proof of work that matters!". nvm that the ABC clowns were screaming victory after just a few hours the first day of getting out ahead several blocks:

Is there something that I am missing, now that the coins are effectively independent coins what is the relevance of longer chain or most PoW?

All that matters as far as I can see is confidence in future value and who can get the most fee-paying usage and adoption. PoW is a result of speculative price. SV is subsidizing PoW given the long-term uncertainty, ABC miners too but to a lesser degree.

 

[Norway]

According to https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/hashrate, SV has had higher hash rate than ABC continuously for the last ten hours.

 

[cypherblock]

Maybe switching to the first-seen block when it finally validates.

Yes that was the idea (not mine originally). Mine on top of whatever validates first, but then switch to first seen block when that is ready.

Now if your goal is to provide incentives to keep blocks small or handleable, well yes that can change the equation. But attack vectors just need to be considered. In other words did the writers of that code to mine on and stay mining on (assuming it does this) the first to validate block, take into account the SM attack. If not, go back and make sure the incentives still align and you haven't opened up an attack vector you did not consider.

 

[cypherdoc]

@AdrianX

>Is there something that I am missing, now that the coins are effectively independent coins what is the relevance of longer chain or most PoW?

i think it's way too early to conclude this. after all, this is a hashwar. ABC busily readying their defences and SV potentially preparing to attack.

 

[cypherblock]

If the average block validation time is 10 seconds selfish mining would only be advantaged for blocks that are found within 10 seconds.

I don't think that is correct. The 10 seconds validation gives SM up to 10 seconds to publish an already found block (found before the Honest block was published) and "convince" other miners to start mining on top of it instead of the Honest block. In other words SM already has a hidden found block. They publish it immediately on seeing the HM block, and normally their odds of getting miners to mine on top of their block would be low, they would have to win the block propagation race (get their block published 2nd to some miners before the HM block). But now they don't have to win the block propagation race, they can lose the block propagation race and still get 100% of miners to mine on top of their block.

Unless you meant that by switching to mine on the first seen block as soon as it validates, only gives advantage to SM for blocks that are found within 10 seconds. Yes that is the point of switching to the first seen block as soon as it validates.

 

[cypherdoc]

what's happening to the ABC mercenary hashrate?:

 

[digitsu]

And world money shouldn't have to deal with mentally challenged drug addicts trying to change it's course.

Give it time. Chains have been dying for years. SV will vanish.
[doublepost=1542833002][/doublepost]
Disrespecting Chatham rules?

Does Chatum rules still hold when what you have is evidence to a crime?
Hmm... No.
(just saying.... I don't know what was said.) Chatum rules is a gentleman's agreement. Not a contract, not a law.
[doublepost=1542858810][/doublepost]

i can hear the screams now; "nvm that, it's cumulative proof of work that matters!". nvm that the ABC clowns were screaming victory after just a few hours the first day of getting out ahead several blocks:

There are (still) more ABC clowns and megaphones than SV ones. SV side seems to just have Craig saying the controversial stuff. ABC side has an army of people saying clueless stuff. (like "yeah! the hashwar is over!" after day 1)

 

[Norway]

BSV had more hashpower than BAB the last 12 hours and is investing 0.4 Hoover Dam more electricity to secure it's chain.

 

[cypherdoc]

ABC continuing to isolate itself by making dictatorial, unilateral, centralized decision making. look @jtoomim defending backroom private decision making for your new currency:

 

[Bloomie]

this thread should have been shut years ago. i tried in 2015 b/c of @Bloomie fuck's exploitation of it's popularity. that didn't work and it's continued along as a circlejerk that isn't working out.

Whenever I get an honorable mention, it's usually because there's either a Bitcoin civil war unfolding or cypherdoc PMS'ing. Looks like this time it's both?

 

[cypherdoc]

nah @Bloomie, your daily hanging out in the XT IRC during that revolution only to disappear from all things Bitcoin after successfully exploiting me to migrate this popular thread here to bootstrap this forum says it all. I hope it was profitable for you as this forum appears to have taken off.

 

[Norway]

People accuse CSW for taking control over the protocol. But it's actually the opposite. By freezing the protocol, control is removed from the single point of failiure, the developers.

99.9% of the developers have good intentions. But they should be competing client developers, not cooperating protocol developers.

I understand that it's almost impossible to see that you are a part of the problem when all you do is working hard to improve bitcoin. But I think this is the reason why it seems to be a blurry divide among BU members between developers/admins and investors/leechers.

 

[lunar]

Disrespecting Chatham rules?

Let's just say, I read that, very differently.

key part "I will release the private docs I received next week at the conference once they become public."

To me, this reads like some big investigation is coming, perhaps one of the alphabet agencies will be publicly releasing something this week, as part of a criminal investigation? Speculation would be Calvin has a personal copy or material witness?

 

[sgbett]

BSV had more hashpower than BAB the last 12 hours and is investing 0.4 Hoover Dam more electricity to secure it's chain.

Yeah, but what is that in “Libraries of Congress”?

 

[solex]

One thing the hashwar has done is obliterate decentralized mining on BCH. That was evolving nicely and by its first anniversary, on 1 August 2018, there was a good mix of different miners competing, coming and going depending upon the prevailing profitability against BTC. I recall a reddit post that BCH mining was looking more decentralized than BTC. This was a massive achievement by the ABC team and vindicated pushing through the early difficult days after the spinoff.
Truly decentralized mining is one of the best measures of a successful cryptocurrency.

Less than 3 months later, after a ridiculous diplomatic and political breakdown between ABC and CSW/Coingeek, both forks of BCH are being effectively solo-mined, and all trust by holders and users must be again be given to the miner on each side to not make a corporate decision to move elsewhere. This state of affairs lasted very briefly after BCH was first launched, because the EDA ensured that any other miner could quickly look for profit where the onchain-scaling community and market existed.

Today there is no end in sight to the dependence on solo-miners, so no wonder the aggregate BCH forks value is under pressure, today about 0.06 of BTC. It amazes me how the Bitcoin SV supporters seem to be fine with 100% solo-mining control way into the future.

On the other side, ABC have abandoned multi-development team consensus in their latest releases, which increasingly look like smart-thinking degenerating into panicked thinking. It would not surprise me if another release appears very soon, and that really would be a headless chicken moment.