Sidebar

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@cliff - the 'miners-have-no-power' is just as correct as every other absolute statement ;-)
  • "The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  • "The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
  • "There is no fate but what we make." Terminator Salvation
Those who just want to sleep easier, I recommend repeating "Controversial hard-forks CANNOT happen" to yourself before going to sleep.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu, 79b79aa8 and cliff
AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
cliff said:
@AdrianX - I like your answer. "Solve" was probably too strong of a word to use on my part. Let me ask a follow up to see if I understand now or am still deficient:

[parameters]

  • Lets say @freetrader's project gets going.
  • Lets also say Core decides to change the PoW algo in a way that is "permanently devastating" to miners (maybe the change is justified, maybe its not - irrelevant for this hypo).
  • Finally, lets say that @freetrader doesn't change anything with his implementation following PoW change by Core.
[question]

Could the miners that were still mining with Core's implementation at the time of the PoW change carry on with their operations by switching to @freetrader's version?

Sorry if this is a noob question, but its still complicated stuff to me.
Click to expand...
@cliff just to add to the reply by @freetrader I think miners could carry on with any PoW implementation that uses the same algorithm, however switching to a version that requires bigger blocks is a hard fork for them and the remaining network - actual removing any of the soft fork changes is a hard fork change for miners.

And as duly noted by those who object to the hard fork change it doesn't come without risks most would be exaggerated by the scenario your describing.

If that scenario were to materialist I think it would need lots of notice so people could prepare it wouldn't be good for the price of bitcoin either.
[doublepost=1475185960][/doublepost]
cliff said:
@freetrader - Thanks! Finally, someone takes the softball so a point can be made (but you did give an answer a little different than what I expected - tis ok, it'll work). :p

So, the threat of PoW change by Core isn't actually "permanently devastating" in itself - the threat is largely about the risks associated with a loss of human capital (i.e., a specific dev team) than an inability to keep mining. The miners can use an older version or even switch to another implementation developed by any other competent team or even develop their own. Correct? The emergent property of consensus is the honeybadger here. We can conclude, then, the 'miners-have-no-power' argument is just fluff?
Click to expand...
@freetrader you left out:
  • "The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." Terminator 4: Genisys
It's not so much about the loss of human capital (i.e., a specific dev team), it's about mining for the network with the most demand for the coins they mine. Miners won't mine any version if there is no demand for there coins, they are incentivized to mine on the network with the most reach and most users. They couldn't mine SHA 256 PoW alt's either without instamining them flooding the market destroying there value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu, freetrader and cliff
cliff

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
Thanks @AdrianX and @freetrader. Sometimes its good to get a refresher/crash-course.

EDIT - It is a little chicken and egg, though. What influences demand for coins? Lots of things, obviously - but I would think that a network with lots of miners who are invested with special mining hardware - that is crazy powerful - has some influence there.

EDIT2 - I guess I gotta re-familiarize myself with the Terminator movies.
 
Last edited:
J

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
Peter R said:
He blatantly lied and publicly said that I was "physically threatening" people in Montreal.
Click to expand...
I personally saw no evidence of Peter "physically threatening people in Montreal". From what I witnessed, Peter acted in a polite and professional manner in Montreal.

Jihan said:
Sadly, Mike Hearn's bad leadership, such as racist expressions made XT lose the support from lots of miners.
Click to expand...
I have not seen Mike using "racist expressions" and I have only ever seen him act in a respectful manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and freetrader
Zarathustra

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
freetrader said:
@cliff - the 'miners-have-no-power' is just as correct as every other absolute statement ;-)
  • "The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." Terminator 2: Judgment Day
  • "The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
  • "There is no fate but what we make." Terminator Salvation
Those who just want to sleep easier, I recommend repeating "Controversial hard-forks CANNOT happen" to yourself before going to sleep.
Click to expand...
The future is set, but you don't have enough information about the causes by which it is determined.
For example: The future will show that the statement in the past about the one and only possible future is true: Permissionless cryptocurrency can't be dominated by toxic totalitarian people for longer than X years.
X is set, but we don't know it (yet).

"Everything proceeds mathematically...if someone could have a sufficient insight into the inner parts of things, and in addition had remembrance and intelligence enough to consider all the circumstances and take them into account, he would be a prophet and see the future in the present as in a mirror." Leibniz

"I hold that ordinary definition of a free agent, namely that a free agent is that which, when all things are present which are needful to produce the effect, can nevertheless not produce it, implies a contradiction and is nonsense; being as much as to say the cause may be sufficient, that is necessary, and yet the effect shall not follow." Hobbes

Diodorus' Master Argument is a set of propositions designed to show that the actual is the only possible and that some true statements about the future imply that the future is already determined. This follows logically from his observation that if something in the future is not going to happen, it must have been that statements in the past that it would not happen must have been true.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/possibilities.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliff and freetrader
AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
just read the link above and was rather surprised to see some blatant inconsistencies. bold mine.
The statements reflect criticisms of Bitcoin Core, the protocol's dominant development team, who have pushed to implement top-level networks that extend bitcoin's functionality without altering its current blockchain rules. Bitcoin Unlimited, by contrast, promotes the idea of on-chain scaling that would boost the number of transactions that could be settled directly on the blockchain, but bring additional consensus changes.
Click to expand...
The philosophy behind BU is not to change the consensus but follow it. In contrast Core are advocating a centralised control model and changes to the current blockchain rules. (I realize the author probably is referring to just the rule of a 21M cap and the block limit as an unchanged rules. It has already been pointed out by other members here and the Core team that all rules can be changed with a soft fork and Core is doing just that.

Core have traditionally regarded the 21M cap as a sacred rule however they don't even see the emission scheme - (Block reward) as a "current blockchain rule" as they've proposed changing that too.

By contrast BU follows the rules agreed to by the largest majority, and the 21M cap is preserved by actually following the majority who are incentivized to benefit from it.

And no. I saw no criticism of Core at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu, cliff, solex and 2 others
freetrader

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
BU needs to update its doc/bips.md and why the hell isn't BIP47 implemented there yet.

This just goes to show there isn't a lack of good solutions, but too few of them have made it into mainline clients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Norway
Inca

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
  • Like
Reactions: awemany, 8up, Norway and 1 other person
Richy_T

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Justus Ranvier said:
It's going to be very difficult for BU to implement BIP-47, since the satoshi client wallet is still based on the archaic random key wallet design.

Wallets based on BIP-44 can integrate BIP-47 much more easily.
Click to expand...
About time for the wallet to be split off from the main node software anyway in my opinion.

It makes zero sense to be porting wallet improvements between bitcoind implementations.
[doublepost=1475365396][/doublepost]
freetrader said:
Interesting post - someone's obviously put a lot of research in this:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/topic11115.html

Pain to verify everything though. Would be sweet if links could have hypertext with substantiating info.
Click to expand...
I may have to print that up and put it up on the wall next to my 2000 map of the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, Golarz Filip, majamalu and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Members online

Total: 27 (members: 1, guests: 26)