Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
Re: needing to change the PoW algo for bigger blocks if we're the minority, if we don't we can be 51%ed. As I understand it, as soon as a big block is mined, the resulting chain permanently diverges from the Core chain, so whatever small blocks they mine after that won't be relevant to our chain anyway.
It wouldn't permanently diverge though. If big-block miner have less than 50%, then big blocks would just get individually orphaned, and miners (core, classic, BU) would follow and keep extending the small-block chain. The "big-block" nodes are more permissive, they accept small blocks and big blocks, and will track whatever chain is longest.
ps
I really don't like this talk of changing the PoW to me it seems like suicide, it's a nice to know there's an escape route, but you'd have to be bonkers to use it.
Agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@Mengerian

Well sure, if we don't actually want to succeed in upping the blocksize cap but instead just remain ready for the hashing majority to come to our side sometime in the future, we don't need to change the algo, but I assumed we were talking about actually insisting on a higher cap. If for some reason most of the miners refused to support an increase even when blocks were full and fees were soaring, the minority miners would not be able to mine the larger blocks to relieve the pressure without having them orphaned - unless we changed the PoW algo. In other words, if we don't change the algo we don't actually get bigger blocks unless we have the hashing power majority (or we don't mind getting 51%ed).

Crazy or not, as far as I know it's the only option for survival in that case.
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@Zangelbert Bingledack

But I still don't see how changing the mining algo really changes anything. Who is the "we" that changes the mining algo? In other words, there is no way of preventing "small-blockers" from mining with the new algo and enforcing a smaller block size limit by orphaning big blocks. Miners always have the ability to orphan blocks if they are in the majority.

So I think we still need to trust that miners will (eventually) do what is in their economic interest.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the situation is asymmetric. The "big blockers" are trying to remove a restriction on block size, but we can't force miners to produce big blocks if they don't want to. We can open the door but they must walk through it.
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@Mengerian

Do you mean the CoreCoin miners can just buy the same ClassicCoin ASICs (say, SHA-3) as we would and 51% us because they can buy more since they're in the economic majority? They could, but they wouldn't for the same reason they don't do that to Litecoin: it would be a waste of money. Or for the same reason George Soros, say, doesn't do that to Bitcoin (again, waste of money). It's only not a waste of money when you're already using the same algo, so you already have the equipment and you can continue using it to mine the surviving coin after you do the attack.

Not only is that the only case where it's not a waste, it's also the only case where an attack is necessary, because the point of the attack would be to guard against later attacks if the minority got stronger. Basically you don't want anyone else on your "channel," meaning the specific PoW algo your coin uses. The incentive is to kill any other coin that is while it is still weaker than yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453
@Mengerian

If for some reason most of the miners refused to support an increase even when blocks were full and fees were soaring, the minority miners would not be able to mine the larger blocks to relieve the pressure without having them orphaned - unless we changed the PoW algo. In other words, if we don't change the algo we don't actually get bigger blocks unless we have the hashing power majority (or we don't mind getting 51%ed).

Crazy or not, as far as I know it's the only option for survival in that case.
I think it's *highly* unlikely we get to a point where it makes sense to attempt a fork / spinoff with minority hash power. Network effect is not literally everything, but it's pretty damn close to everything. It's not a question of whether a "big-block Bitcoin" is worth more than a "small-block Bitcoin" in the abstract. Obviously, most of us think it is. It's whether a "small-network, big-block Bitcoin" would be worth more than a "large-network, currently small-block (but with latent capacity for future block size increase) Bitcoin." And I don't see how the answer to that question isn't no. I don't see any likely scenario by which the smaller-network, big-block coin comes from behind to overtake the larger-network, small-block coin. (Instead, I think it would immediately get dumped.) What I do see happening is that the large-network, small-block coin (i.e., Bitcoin) eventually raises its block size when the pressure gets high enough.
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@Zangelbert Bingledack

But "we" would also have to buy the new equipment to get started, so why wouldn't that also be a waste of money?

I guess the only situation where I can see a new POW algo making sense is if those adopting it are basically an insignificant economic minority. It would be a "spinoff" coin starting from the Bitcoin ledger. But I'm not terribly interested in that case, I want to be part of the economic majority.

A larger block size limit just serves to remove a restriction so that the economic majority can follow a path to maximize value of the Bitcoin ledger.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
looking very bad. $DJI is also now below the August closing low, but not below the intraday low:

 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@Roger_Murdock
It's whether a "small-network, big-block Bitcoin" would be worth more than a "large-network, currently small-block (but with latent capacity for future block size increase) Bitcoin."
Well that's why I said "even when blocks were full and fees were soaring." I was trying to paint a scenario where for some odd reason the miners seem to be nearly committing suicide, which of course we would never expect them to do, at least in theory* (inasmuch as they are a proxy for the economic majority; however, we also expected them to up the blocksize a while ago). In that case the network effect could be outweighed by the sheer brokenness of the small-block network.

I also consider the argument about future valuation (including future network effect) being baked into the current price.

To better contextualize my comments, I think the idea of changing the PoW algo makes a bit more sense for Core than for Classic, because in the case of Core they have the settlement-coin vision, which basically takes on the investment proposition of an altcoin that might be called SwiftCoin or something, and like you say they can always increase the blocksize later if needed (this has always been Core's strongest argument, IMO; Greg and Luke even think a blocksize increase could be rolled out in 2 weeks if necessary).

@Mengerian
But "we" would also have to buy the new equipment to get started, so why wouldn't that also be a waste of money?
Because we wouldn't get 51% attacked for the reasons I mentioned, and (we believe) our coin would eventually be very valuable even if the market hasn't realized that yet. Just like Bitcoin, it's only profitable to buy the equipment to mine it if you believe in it, not to attack it.
[doublepost=1453308155,1453307234][/doublepost]Or look at it this way: it's at least conceivable that Core is correct that there are trade-offs between blocksize and security, so that it may make sense - at some blocksize at least - to split Bitcoin into SettlementCoin and PaymentCoin. I happen to think that blocksize would be very large, if there even is any such blocksize, while Core seems to think it's right around 1MB.

In that case, the market would support a fork where the minority and majority sides both survive, because it would be rational. Likely their market caps would differ quite a bit, and they'd want different PoW algos to avoid conflict.

I think some are taking my comments as, "Classic should change the PoW algo if it falls into the minority." I would recommend against that at this point in time, because it's not nearly urgent enough (and likely never will be since Core will capitulate or miners will change their tune, but who knows). In that case, Classic should be delayed until it is more urgently needed or some more miner-favored client is released, and in fact that is what the 75% cutoff ensures. I'm a lot closer to saying Core should do that *if* they want to take a super-hardline stance, which of course I will say is a bad idea but it is their choice.

TL;DR: Changing the PoW algo is the logical thing to do if you really want to take the ultra-hardline stance, even against the mining majority. The question is whether it is ever useful to take such a hardline stance, and the answer is quite likely no. (However, this is still a relevant point since there are people in Core at least saying they want to take such a hardline stance. I feel obligated to ensure they are welcomed to do so; it benefits us if they do anyway.)

*If we really take this seriously, why are we even bothering to post and convince anyone? ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
just sold ~60% of my DXD position @25; an enormous short term trade gain :)
[doublepost=1453309899,1453309039][/doublepost]nice, consistent full blocks:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
[doublepost=1453310074][/doublepost]we got another divergence going now. might have to stake another position in DZZ with my gains from DXD:



 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
China: looks like they've been exploring the ideas of issuing a digital currency, with recommendations to the government that they should do so.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3008070/index.html

google translated

original text:
http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3008070/index.html
The meeting urged the People's Bank of digital currency research team to actively absorb the important results and practical experience of digital currency research at home and abroad, continue to advance on the basis of preliminary work to establish a more effective organizational guarantee mechanism, to further clarify the strategic objectives of the central bank issued digital currency and do key technologies, multi-scene digital currency research applications for the early introduction of digital currency issued by the central bank. Design of digital currency should be based on economic, convenience and safety principles, and ensure the application of low-cost digital currency, wide coverage, digital currency payment instruments with other seamlessly, enhance the applicability and vitality of digital currency.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
not looking good for pm's:


[doublepost=1453310165][/doublepost]
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
catching down to the low low:

 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Wow, I didn't expect to see this!

If blocks were growing in size faster than Matt, Bryan and JL are comfortable with, they could set their individual block size limits lower and encourage others to do the same. For example, they could encode their limits in their node's user-agent string; combined with statements from other thought leaders, if their concerns were valid, a new consensus might emerge around (e.g.) 8 MB. This gives nodes a decentralized "veto" should miners become reckless.

Bitcoin Unlimited for the win. :D

We need for nodes to start running Bitcoin Unlimited to tell the miners "we accept larger blocks TODAY!" All this trying to synchronize things is counterproductive from the non-mining nodes perspective. Once the miners see that the majority of the network will accept larger blocks, they will produce them.
 
Last edited: