5 ms·

If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the

If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the fork wars have proven this.

stale2002 4y ago
Hey, you would be free to fork of to your own little chain that nobody uses. You can always do that. But if the whole system is at risk due to attacks, I expect that you will be a bit lonely on that chain
- once_inc 4y ago
  I would just not do anything and continue on the original chain. Yes, if most of the world moves to the other chain, that fork will be Bitcoin for the rest of the world. The issue is if my time preference is low enough to await/speculate on the demise of the chain due to the issues I've identified and made me not switch.
mhluongo 4y ago
Pretty sure node runners would prefer a UASF to hybrid PoS or at least a different PoW algo over constant 51% attacks. I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up. [0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2J0ez5danXjZQmxPux11Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...
- ftlio 4y ago
  Consistent 51% attacks rely on Bitcoin already being more-or-less worthless. If it is, then yes, the cost of terrorizing the network will be low. The same follows based on Vitalik’s argument for why PoS is supposedly too expensive to attack. The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    Attacking bitcoin uses energy but does not degrade the computer or the energy infrastructure required to do the attack. Attacking PoS ethereum degrades the resource you use to attack. When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.

If so, that won't be the Bitcoin my node will switch to. You can't force the network to do what you want. UASF and the many forks before, during, and after the fork wars have proven this.

stale2002 4y ago

Hey, you would be free to fork of to your own little chain that nobody uses. You can always do that. But if the whole system is at risk due to attacks, I expect that you will be a bit lonely on that chain

once_inc 4y ago
I would just not do anything and continue on the original chain. Yes, if most of the world moves to the other chain, that fork will be Bitcoin for the rest of the world. The issue is if my time preference is low enough to await/speculate on the demise of the chain due to the issues I've identified and made me not switch.

mhluongo 4y ago

Pretty sure node runners would prefer a UASF to hybrid PoS or at least a different PoW algo over constant 51% attacks. I love Bitcoin, but you have to be able to consider hypotheticals like this. Similarly... a tail emission should be on the table. Mentioning it used to be totally third rail [0], but these days folks like Peter Todd are speaking up. [0] - https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2J0ez5danXjZQmxPux11Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/mhluongo/status/1092559017178734594?t=i2...

ftlio 4y ago
Consistent 51% attacks rely on Bitcoin already being more-or-less worthless. If it is, then yes, the cost of terrorizing the network will be low. The same follows based on Vitalik’s argument for why PoS is supposedly too expensive to attack. The difference is if you want to terrorize Bitcoin, you need to find energy and compute at relatively low cost compared to everyone still on the network. With Ethereum, you just need to acquire ETH.
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  Attacking bitcoin uses energy but does not degrade the computer or the energy infrastructure required to do the attack. Attacking PoS ethereum degrades the resource you use to attack. When bitcoin was created there weren't hashpower markets where you could attack a chain without ever having invested in it and then move on the next minute, your hardware investment still earning you money. I think satoshi thought there would only be one chain and the game theory with many is different.