Miners are not suppose to just use hashrate to signal. Those signals mean absolutely nothing.
Miners are suppose to come up with new needed rules
Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
and they then get to vote on these new rules with their hashpower and then enforce them with their hashpower.
They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.
If miners would lead like this, miners would start signaling to the markets where they believe the value is. Right now crypto markets are still pretty dumb and uninformed, sometimes when a coin successfully get's 51% attacked the value of it goes up instead of down.
If the white paper is properly followed then new rules get shut down by the other miners because those blocks get orphaned by majority hash.
The catch here is that majority hash gets determined by the market price but before a split there is no market price yet!
If miners properly understood this, they would have just forked BTC to a higher block size in 2015.
Miners still don't understand this. And this is specifically the Chinese miners who don't deal well with themselves being the highest authority in Bitcoin. Cause they are the only ones that have voting power and voting wrong is extremely expensive for them as they see their blocks being orphaned by the ones that vote right.
Ultimately the market price determines who is wright or wrong but when miners hesitate to take risks they signal to the market uncertainty and fear.
This is why I am neither against the IFP or in favor of it.
I just want miners to start leading the space and talking bigger risks rather then holding on to the status quo.
If BTC would have forked to a higher block size, it's total market cap would be higher than BTC, BSV and BCH combined.
Miners shot themselves in the foot by not talking the risk that they should have taken. Miners apparently don't properly understand where the value that Bitcoin has comes from.
I hope this will change in the future because if not BCH will fork itself to death and most likely eventually even BTC will be forked again in to multiple other coins.
And all of that can be avoided if miners find common ground with other miners about where the value of Bitcoin comes from. And then start enforcing that value with brute force, ai hashrate.
Expensive at times because markets will always lag behind, but willing to burn through short term electricity for a future long term gain can be a powerful signal to an otherwise dumb and uninformed market.
One of the way to unconfuse the market is for miners to start taking more risk.
As for the IFP, I hope it won't activate but even when it does not ... I believe BU is going to try to create BSV 2.0 anyways.
The main problem with the IFP is still that the white paper says
"By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them"
ABC would become the central authority that issues 5% of them.
This undermines long term value of BCH, therefor the coin that does not do this is more valuable long term.
It's like this because all of us agreed it was going to be like this from the beginning and we can not undermine this. I mean we can, but you undermine yourself when you do this because ultimately the value that Bitcoin has comes from the pool of shared values that has the most believers. What is money is in the (collective) mind, gold fiat or Bitcoin. This will never change.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f53lht/the_ifp_plan_is_just_a_symptom_of_a_deeper/
No comments:
Post a Comment