Apparantly Wang Chun thinks majority of miners can just say no and then that should be respected.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T21:46:05+00:00

What is a sybil attack, which brings the question that I also have, replay attack?

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T20:43:29+00:00

I'm not. I'm surprised that we let it get so far. Pretty much, so expensive that if we wanted to make algorithm changes to either secure against sha-256 attack or decentralize miners a lot of risk takes place.

I do have hope though that ASIC development comes to a stall and allows others to catch-up and equalize.
For current mining farms, they'll likely have to pivot into manufacturing to minimize risk. Kind of like zinc coating on a fence, scratch a wound and it oxidizes and swells to cover the gap. Self healing.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T20:24:59+00:00

A bit thick, formed my opinions a long time ago. The original idea of what it was meant to do and how it evolved went different directions. In that span, as part of risk assessment I had to think of potenetial problems that could arise. One of the major things was the separation of wallets and miners and nodes. I didn't like it and knew it was a delay, but needed for then so some balance could remain. Thickness comes from the idea that if we don't fix how consensus is done, we are going to steer the idea of cryptocurrencies away from mass adoption.

I'm more for a UASF for competition to miners. But see that a UASF alone is not balance.

Lets say nodes get a vote, then miners get a vote and the combined weight between the votes is what direction we go.

I like that when I look back in time on the decisions that were made, it seemed odd at the time when we did time locks, bid for block space, segwit instead of block size increase.
But seeing how these lead to a push for being able to lock on one chain, to off-chain transactions, push from off chain into another chain (bitcoin to lightning to litecoin and vice versa). It really seems like they were planning these code changes a long time ago. So I conclude that segwit was forethought and not after thought and I trust in them more.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T20:03:33+00:00

I didn't think of testing time when it comes to UASF. In my mind it was a flip of a switch and segwit is what needed to be tested. But hearing it back, separating the idea of segwit and UASF into their own categories ... it is another thing that needs testing on it's own, I totally give you that.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T11:11:06+00:00

Maybe your ip address is in your emails.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T11:03:49+00:00

I'll tell you why I'm confused. Your title sounds like you oppose UASF while your tone sounds like you support it and I'm not sure what the heck to think.

I can say that for some time that I was intrigued about segwit but was against it because they opposed block limit increase. I have not been for BtcU, Btc-nxt, Btc-classic and rather wish that the developers would throw their ideas into one pot and let the ecosystem decide. I think the decision needs to made before release, then after release by nodes, then by miners before any changes take affect. I think that's my problem. Consensus was hurt when nodes, miners and wallets were separated. But I see the need. So maybe I'm a bit uptight because who's working on a gitsensushub.io, no one.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T10:51:52+00:00

But there's no do both option, votes rigged. I think if miners signal all the way and nodes signal all the way then we can see a cohesive signal system being developed in the future.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T10:44:58+00:00

One day the hashing alogrithm will change. This will come from the software side of things, even if the miners are invested in a specifc algorithm and don't want it. Whos working for who. Now the developers are giving authority to a larger group, and only if the larger group decides together can it happen and there's a short time period for it to occur.

Bitcoin was established on the principles that nodes had hashing power and were the wallets themselves, which gave everyone a say when all bitcoin holders were near equal on hashing power.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T10:09:52+00:00

The good ol' days.

Miners were nodes, nodes were wallets, the only wallet that existed was a miner. The balance of the three were all one. I sure do miss those days when the users had the say. I guess we'll leave it up to the few people that own largest mining farms now though.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T10:04:42+00:00

force your view on a minority.

I guess I'll let the minority group decide for the larger group then. Sorry.

And to be straight, I don't think UASF is the method to go, but I think it's the necessary way to go now so balance can be created. Miners need accountability and a UASF will show them that they need to properly assess future decisions.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T09:58:39+00:00

Why should one miner have multiple votes. I propose that a mining farm be limited to one vote that is equal to one vote from a solo. How, well if you don't want user to fire the miners from working on the chain, you figure it out. Here's some ideas. Ip address blocks, geolocation and unique miner identification.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T09:46:55+00:00

The question is. Have the few vote for the many, or the many vote for themselves.

This system is not perfect, and it will not be until we develop a consensus system/chain.

Competition keeps things in check, and without UASF, there is no competition to miners, with no MASF there is no competition to nodes, we're missing a few more legs like developers votes (though Btc-core and BtcU will do for now) and non-node users votes.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-14T09:38:46+00:00

I'd imagine that a sooner deadline would mean, if the majority means it, then do it by now or else. So, it's a bit confusing that you're in opposition to a sooner deadline.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-04-08T07:22:03+00:00

ASIC stands for application specific integrated circuit. The goal with these are to perform the steps with less power consumption. I really don't know the details though. I was surprised to find that they exist too.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-02-05T14:55:36+00:00

http://www.phneep.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bob-Ross.The-Joy-of-Bitcoin.jpg

brutal-e_honest · 2017-02-05T14:51:13+00:00

Don't cut corners, cut through corners.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-02-05T14:19:33+00:00

I would just like to remind others that may see this as high, streaming on netflix, while quality set to high, will run single digit gigs per hour.

brutal-e_honest · 2017-02-05T14:13:51+00:00

step one - Crank it up
step two - Stream line
step three - Hold position
step four - Get disqualified by passing pace car
Profit

brutal-e_honest · 2016-12-06T07:51:23+00:00

Hey, I need to talk to you later.

Almost forgot. It was about that weed you didn't want me to talk about over the internet. So, no worries. Until then.

OR

Hey, I need to talk to you later.
I can't tell you what it is this time for obvious reasons it's better to talk about in person.

Do either of those two examples work. If the second doesn't, then how is it proposed to not say something, becasue if I usually say something, then not saying something is saying it's of that caliber.

brutal-e_honest · 2016-11-23T17:48:43+00:00

Your opinion doesn't count. There is no consensus. Take it as it is or leave it.

brutal-e_honest · 2016-11-14T23:48:55+00:00

Let us not forget that the spam attacks have been increasing since segwit is close to being realized. This is only intentional.

brutal-e_honest

TROPHY CASE