Create account

Upps...
replied · 23d
Seems the other miners/nodes can see this as at least two other mining pools with no registered names in the Coinbase.
replied · 23d
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 · 23d
There is a danger of a 51% attack. I'm not sure it's reflected in the price.
The danger level starts from 25%, which is enough to disrupt the network. 50% and more is an emergency situation.
The value of these networks are being determined on highly manipulated exchanges, purely driven by speculation.
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.
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...
...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 · 23d
Not good to see this.
replied · 23d
By the way, the developers are ready to do this. But Amaury said it was a "nuclear option":
Yeah, I know, @a356gf was my twitter handle. :(
replied · 23d
He is right. Best not to. Especially since this is at least two pools, not one.
replied · 23d
Any suggestions on what to change to?
SHA512
replied · 23d
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.
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.
replied · 23d
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
If social attacks mattered, then we wouldn't be here. ;)
The current situation is just not sustainable. Having 1-3% of the global SHA256 hashrate is an existential threat.
replied · 22d
I'd be interested to see an informed discussion on the pros and cons of merge mining Bitcoin Cash with Bitcoin Core.
Tried it on an number of occasions. Sadly the BCH community is very misinformed and clueless when it comes to this topic.
replied · 22d
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
Yesterday, Kain_niaK said that It's stupid to change it because Roger and a chinese dude will always defend BCH.
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.
replied · 22d
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.
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 · 22d
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 · 22d
What's the popular consensus?
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.
Some goes as far as completely denying any of the risks posed by the low relative hashrate.
While they downvote you to oblivion....(where did I see that????)
replied · 22d
Merged mining keeps the algorithm the same - I guess maybe we're talking about different things.
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.
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 · 23d
Agreed.
replied · 23d
Adding Avalanche as a second layer of security is another solution.
replied · 23d
replied · 23d
Wouldn't it have the consequence that the miners would stop mining and the price would fall?
If you change the algorithm, it does not matter what SHA256 miners do anymore.
replied · 23d
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.
replied · 23d
Hashrate generally follows price. Not the other way around.
replied · 23d
Even BSV miners (Coingeek, etc.) stopped mining at a loss: https://sv.coin.dance/blocks
If majority of the underlying ecosystem upgrades their software then it will be BCH. Miners are powerless if everyone else follows a different chain.
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 · 23d
Maybe you're right. Algo chang would be dangerous, but even the current state is no less dangerous.
The current state is an order of magnitude more dangerous.
replied · 23d
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
Indeed. To do a successful algo change majority of the non-mining players and users have to upgrade including the exchanges.
replied · 23d
Especially the Exchanges. Otherwise the miner and Exchanges stay on the old chain and keep BCH ticker.
replied · 23d
Exchanges most of the time will follow the main devs.
Devs that control the git get control of the name and ticker.
this. Also, monero proved that no one will give a shit about the "old-miner" branch if everyone else upgrades.
It's the same with any hard fork upgrade.
The irrelevant amount of SHA256 hash would just move back to BTC.
replied · 23d
Hurdles will be there, but they can be overcome eventually....something must be done long term before eco warriors turn against mining too.
replied · 23d
Part of me thinks cardano is a sleeping giant capable of rendering POW superfluous, we’ll all be eating crow if Hoskinson can deliver.
Thinking that POW can be replaced without serious trade offs is dumb.
What hash? I would be sure to fire up my CPUs/GPUs.

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