Crypto 360°

Thursday, 23 January 2020

I represent a cartel comprising 51% of BCH miners. We intend to change the protocol to force our competitors to give us 12.5% of their income.

We pinky promise to use this money for “development” or the greater good or whatever and anyone without even a passing comprehension of human history will totally believe us and trust us.

Before you complain please remember that we have 51% of hash so we are MATHEMATICALLY incapable of making the wrong decision or doing anything that might harm bitcoin.

This could not possibly be another majority hash cluster fuck akin to the majority hash that chose to choke bitcoin adoption and growth by allowing blockstream to cripple transaction capacity, because MATH.

submitted by /u/MortuusBestia
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esm4kt/i_represent_a_cartel_comprising_51_of_bch_miners/

The Miner-Activated Infrastructure Fund is nothing to worry about. Bitcoin Cash will come out stronger after this. Watch out for trolls and saboteurs trying to manipulate the narrative.

I don't want to make this a long post, i just want to touch on a couple of things.

1) The miners have always had the power to do this, and they will (to some extent at least) always have this power.

Nothing's fundamentally changed here. The miners control the protocol, this is how governance on bitcoin works. There is various pros and cons between POW and POS, but we're all here, and we all signed up for POW.

Let me ask you, even if this was immoral for the miners to do, what can be done about it? You can't control the miners. You'd have to create a new system besides bitcoin, if you're scared of what the miners do.

2) The miners have the right to do this.

Its detailed in the whitepaper as a philosophically important point. "By this (POW via miners) mechanism, any new rules and incentives can be enforced."

3) This is the first time in a long time that the miners are being proactive. Let's not discourage them.

Miner apathy led to the BTC-BCH split and the S2X fiasco. This is the first time in a long time that miners are realizing their role and being proactive. Let's encourage them and make them feel good.

4) The risk of dev corruption doesn't make sense because this is the miners' decision.

The miners are acting proactively to implement this intelligently and temporarily, the dev groups are not doing it themselves. Because the dev groups are not seeking to enrich themselves, the infra fund is therefore not telling of corruption. It matters a lot that the miners are the ones deciding to do this.

5) This is not a tax, this is not theft. The miners are not stealing.

The blockchain itself, to a degree of interpretation , is the private property of the miners, distributed by their continual hashpower. The system was designed and intended this way. Winning blocks can be thought of as homesteading, so its not stealing to attach a fee to them prior to them being distributed. This is more like a rent than a tax. We might all hate rent, but rent isn't immoral.

I just hope we can all continue to work together and not feel discouraged. Let's take this as positive news and hope for the best. Nothing bad has happened yet, and i don't think anything will.

submitted by /u/J-Stodd
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esn4yv/the_mineractivated_infrastructure_fund_is_nothing/

A concern with the proposed miner funded development plan

Lets assume that:

- the proposal continues as stated in the article and the coinbase reward donations are NOT added to the bch block validation consensus rules. Miners will instead forcibly orphan a block that doesnt support the donations every time one is mined.

- BSV hashrate is static because NChain is the only people mining that chain.

Basic rational economics dictates that if btc or bch is more profitable to mine at any given time then hashrate will flow to that coin until the profitability between the two hits equilibrium (again after difficulty adjustment adjusts mining profitability). Otherwise the miners are mining for less profit than they could be.

The bch hashrate probably wont drop by the full 12.5% but it is safe to say that it will drop. Wouldnt a combination of a lower hashrate and some verbal agreement to spend mining power to orphan non donating blocks make it easy for some malicious entity (doesnt matter who) to point a portion of their mining power at BCH (since it is a minority sha256 coin) to generate non donating blocks with the intended goal to be to waste BCH mining time by forcing the donation supporting pools to now have to work to orphan them?

Additionally ABC has implemented an additional work requirement for reorgs. If i understand how that works correctly... if the malicious miners do come in and mine non reward blocks, get lucky and get multiple in a row. then it would be very difficult to rewind the chain and orphan those blocks.

What happens then? just continue and accept some lost coinbase rewards? halt the chain until they can reorg? extend the donation time limit that number of blocks?

This seems to be a fairly large flaw with this funding plan.

Either the donation is actually optional (no attempt to orphan the non donating blocks) or this needs to be a hard fork (consensus enforced). a miner soft fork does not work here

edit: clarity/grammar

edit: it would seem /u/markblundeberg also wrote about this problem here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/ credit to him for beating me to post

submitted by /u/GregGriffith
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esmc6r/a_concern_with_the_proposed_miner_funded/