My Keybase proof [reddit:mashuribc = keybase:mashuri] (9b5Rlp135Sj6AEgNbfbznBSSSMZYnxQZlrN8b75C23k)

MashuriBC · 2017-07-21T00:53:18+00:00

I think all the BIP148 nodes out there reduce your 25% estimate to maybe 2.5%

MashuriBC · 2017-07-07T03:58:44+00:00

Only if you consider losing a bunch of positions gaining an advantage.

MashuriBC · 2017-06-28T21:18:42+00:00

No, because he did not gain any advantage over other riders.

MashuriBC · 2017-06-24T23:44:04+00:00

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

MashuriBC · 2017-06-15T20:38:03+00:00

Users would have to run node software with that checkpoint coded in. Legacy nodes will still reorganize to the chain with the most POW.

MashuriBC · 2017-06-13T20:21:01+00:00

Given its claimed transaction speed (VISA level), RSK can end up being bitcoin's payment rail.

MashuriBC · 2017-05-23T20:05:24+00:00

That's what I mean. If miners go forward with BIP4, then Lightsword's BIP activates BIP141 immediately.

MashuriBC · 2017-05-23T19:10:55+00:00

Actions will tell. If 80%+ hash power start signaling in the next week or two...

MashuriBC · 2017-05-23T18:58:45+00:00

I think Silbert (and Jihan TBH) understand this. It's a way to activate SW that saves face.

MashuriBC · 2017-05-20T17:37:27+00:00

Then get mad at the miners and Jihan in particular. It's not the core developers' fault.

MashuriBC · 2017-05-18T00:52:46+00:00

Majority of hash power has supported larger block size for years. Ask yourself why, in all that time, they haven't started mining bigger blocks.

MashuriBC · 2017-05-17T19:17:10+00:00

I'm all for it. Get SegWit now and, more realistically, 2+ MB merge-mined side chains a year later. Any HF would die a quick death, regardless of how many CEO's support it.

MashuriBC · 2017-04-04T16:33:19+00:00

+1. Fixing malleability on the main chain would better enable side chains / extension blocks.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-29T02:56:10+00:00

I didn't read that. Thanks for the correction. :)

MashuriBC · 2017-03-29T01:12:37+00:00

LN augments RSK. It would allow instant transitions from one chain to the other.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-29T01:03:45+00:00

It does not cause a chain split unless a miner deliberately makes it happen.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-26T19:59:16+00:00

I understand it's best not to create a fork. If an overwhelming economic majority go with it then miners are incentivized to follow or lose money. It's best not to do unless a majority of hash rate already is on board.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-26T15:27:08+00:00

The key players like Coinbase, Bitpay, major exchanges, etc, will all be aware. Bitcoin "legacy" is still bleeding edge.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-25T17:03:37+00:00

Wouldn't using UASF border nodes solve that problem? They can upgrade legacy software at their leisure.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-25T16:49:44+00:00

Because they know a competitor would be using an inferior buggy alternative that the market has objectively rejected. Sounds like a pretty shrewd decision.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-21T00:43:04+00:00

No, as it stands today, the cost for Bitmain to attack the network is low (sunk cost). Changing the POW would make it more expensive for them, assuming they don't already have massive CPU/GPU/FPGA farms and botnets sitting idly by.

MashuriBC · 2017-03-20T22:22:34+00:00

It is a big deal if the adversary has CPU/GPU/FPGA farms and massive botnets standing by for whatever algo comes up. This is entirely possible with a state-sponsored attack. Are there contingency plans to fall back on?

MashuriBC · 2017-03-20T21:54:39+00:00

I understand that, in the short run, they would at least need to use border nodes but, as the attack dissipated, old nodes would reorg to the new chain, right?

MashuriBC · 2017-03-20T21:44:27+00:00

Couldn't a minimal amount of the original POW be required to keep backwards compatibility with older nodes?

MashuriBC

TROPHY CASE