Create account

2153d
Upps...
3 / 58 4
1
13,100
replied 2152d
Seems the other miners/nodes can see this as at least two other mining pools with no registered names in the Coinbase.
BMT322
replied 2153d
For the less tech savvy among us? What does this translate to for the value of bitcoin and its forks? (Not counting SV, of course)
replied 2152d
There is a danger of a 51% attack. I'm not sure it's reflected in the price.
replied 2152d
The danger level starts from 25%, which is enough to disrupt the network. 50% and more is an emergency situation.
replied 2153d
The value of these networks are being determined on highly manipulated exchanges, purely driven by speculation.
replied 2153d
All POW based networks assume that majority of the miners is not hostile. It is highly dangerous to have a single entity controlling 51%+ of the network.
replied 2152d
Mind, attacks can be executed from as low as 25% of the total hashrate present on the network. BCH is vulnerable because it has on 1-3% of the global SHA256 hashpower, meaning...
replied 2152d
...that a single semi-wealthy person could attack it if he/she wanted to. Now ponder the groups that are vocally anti-BCH....

#ChangeThePOW
replied 2153d
Not good to see this.
replied 2153d
#ChangeThePOW
replied 2153d
By the way, the developers are ready to do this. But Amaury said it was a "nuclear option":
1
10,000
replied 2153d
Yeah, I know, @a356gf was my twitter handle. :(
1
5,000
replied 2152d
He is right. Best not to. Especially since this is at least two pools, not one.
replied 2153d
Any suggestions on what to change to?
replied 2153d
SHA512
replied 2153d
I really don't know if this is a good idea. New hashing function implies new ASICs, and the network would be vulnerable to GPU attacks during the transition.
1
1,234
replied 2153d
The network wouldn't be vulnerable if enough peeps in the BCH ecosystem starts mining/rents hash to mine it.

Long term, it will be all about incentives to shape its future.
2
5,000
replied 2153d
Or this change is planned, and then it leaves plenty of time to have governance issues and social attacks like: "Bitcoin without SHA-256 is not Bitcoin, blah blah blah"

Idk
replied 2153d
If social attacks mattered, then we wouldn't be here. ;)
replied 2153d
The current situation is just not sustainable. Having 1-3% of the global SHA256 hashrate is an existential threat.
1
2,500
replied 2152d
I'd be interested to see an informed discussion on the pros and cons of merge mining Bitcoin Cash with Bitcoin Core.
replied 2152d
Tried it on an number of occasions. Sadly the BCH community is very misinformed and clueless when it comes to this topic.
replied 2152d
Id say many are fearful,scared of change and the risks associated
As for merge mining with an old fork,no
One of the main reasons Myspace died, Scalability, btc will die eventually too
replied 2152d
Yesterday, Kain_niaK said that It's stupid to change it because Roger and a chinese dude will always defend BCH.
replied 2152d
The stupidity runs so fucking deep, it's lucky I already lost all hope in humanity when BSCore successfully hijacked BTC using retarded narratives and censorship.
1
1,200
replied 2152d
It takes a very long time in crypto to understand all the little details, many just dont have the time or desire to put in the effort to keep learning.
replied 2152d
Majority of the people, even in the BCH community cares only about getting rich. This is why BTC is still #1 on the shitcoinmarket.
replied 2152d
If J&R wanted to change the algo for long term safety, they would still have BCH and so would we....as long as devs and community are in general consensus.
replied 2152d
What's the popular consensus?
replied 2152d
The consensus of the retarded pleb is that you are a Core/TPTB minion out to destroy BCH if you even talk about an algo change.
replied 2152d
Some goes as far as completely denying any of the risks posed by the low relative hashrate.
1
1,000
replied 2152d
While they downvote you to oblivion....(where did I see that????)
replied 2152d
Merged mining keeps the algorithm the same - I guess maybe we're talking about different things.
replied 2152d
I think merge mining won't float this boat and we should concentrate on breaking free rather than tying ourselves more to the BTC scheme. SHA256 voted already and their vote is BTC.
1
1,000
replied 2153d
The same with the crippling 1MB limit, it is wise to solve these things before they become a problem. Changing the hash algo should be the #1 focus currently.
replied 2153d
Agreed.
replied 2153d
Adding Avalanche as a second layer of security is another solution.
replied 2153d
On the problems solved by Avalanche: https://medium.com/@chrispacia/the-problems-solved-by-avalanche-5575a1b0d7bc
replied 2153d
Wouldn't it have the consequence that the miners would stop mining and the price would fall?
replied 2153d
If you change the algorithm, it does not matter what SHA256 miners do anymore.
replied 2153d
But the hash would probably fall extremely and so would the price. Also, after such fork the sha256 miner would continue to mine the old BCH. Nobody would follow the new fork.
1
1,000
replied 2153d
Hashrate generally follows price. Not the other way around.
1
10,000
replied 2153d
Even BSV miners (Coingeek, etc.) stopped mining at a loss: https://sv.coin.dance/blocks
replied 2153d
If majority of the underlying ecosystem upgrades their software then it will be BCH. Miners are powerless if everyone else follows a different chain.
replied 2153d
All upgrades require coordination, this is no different. I think the BCH userbase is big enough to pull off a successful POW algo change.
replied 2153d
Maybe you're right. Algo chang would be dangerous, but even the current state is no less dangerous.
replied 2153d
The current state is an order of magnitude more dangerous.
replied 2153d
Agree with all TLT :-)
but if Algo change is done without BCH ABC and others, we risk splitting to a new name & ticker
if algo change is done with consensus,rivals will mine old chain
replied 2152d
Indeed. To do a successful algo change majority of the non-mining players and users have to upgrade including the exchanges.
replied 2152d
Especially the Exchanges. Otherwise the miner and Exchanges stay on the old chain and keep BCH ticker.
replied 2152d
Exchanges most of the time will follow the main devs.
Devs that control the git get control of the name and ticker.
replied 2152d
this. Also, monero proved that no one will give a shit about the "old-miner" branch if everyone else upgrades.
replied 2152d
It's the same with any hard fork upgrade.
replied 2152d
The irrelevant amount of SHA256 hash would just move back to BTC.
replied 2153d
Hurdles will be there, but they can be overcome eventually....something must be done long term before eco warriors turn against mining too.
BMT322
replied 2153d
Part of me thinks cardano is a sleeping giant capable of rendering POW superfluous, we’ll all be eating crow if Hoskinson can deliver.
replied 2153d
Thinking that POW can be replaced without serious trade offs is dumb.
replied 2153d
What hash? I would be sure to fire up my CPUs/GPUs.

You can't directly compare the hashrate of different algorithms.


About Privacy Terms Stats