enemy is giving him too much credit.
He released the selfish mining paper
that caused people to think miners were evil.
An hypothesis with zero evidence/proof
from assistant professor.
interesting. didn't know he started this lie.
Not a lie. Selfish mining is a threat. Research the topic, before believing what ppl say.
And it is a threat because it never did any harm?
Magnetic poles of the Earth reversing themselves is a threat.
Why don't the rest of your troll friends buy some BCH so they can spout off here?
sorry. I was too quick there.
there is zero proof that SM is a threat,
it's based on a model different to what bitcoin is.
Research.
provide the proof.
Research
the onus is on those that make the claim to provide proof.
You know there is the paper, you brought it up. It is on you now.
The paper based on an hypothesis
All words, zero testing.
Yeah, yaeh, I get you, the threat is not a threat, until it's executed. Come on, get real.
LN has a paper as well, it works perfectly there.
Means nothing, if anything adds weight to what I'm saying.
Next?
You make no sense.
I have where it counts, thank you.
And goodbye.
nope, mining is competitive in nature.
WHY would miners collude to kill a business they've invested millions of dollars, time and reputation in?
I cannot confirm this was the beginning...
or if AA fed the hypothesis before that,
which in turn prompted the paper.
Not sure of the sequence.
people believed without proof,
he made miners sound greedy as an error,
it's part of the fabric
*NOBODY* tested it,
CSW offered a bounty for people to prove SM true.
Nobody could/can.
we all agree SM is not a present danger. but it is a geniune theoretical threat, and responsible devs ought to keep it into account when planning for the future
"we"?
You must be oblivious to what's happening
power is being taken away from devs
who have to date not been responsible for staying true to the protocol.
Being handed back2 miners.
not oblivious to that. but what does it have to do with SM as a theoretical threat? (again, not claiming it is a present danger).
theoretical threat
what IS that?
Something that looks dangerous on paper
or in peoples' minds?
dude, the math checks out. in some cases it is possible for miners to gain small advantages over others with less hashrate.
it's like blocksize. do we need 1 GB blocks now? no, we couldn't fill them if we tried. but devs need to build a system that can handle that capacity in advance of demand. play to win.
similary SM threat ought to be mitigated by design, well in advance of it becoming economically significant.
Maybe it checks out *IF* bitcoin were a mesh network
it's not,
it's a small world.
And, *again* the SM hypothesis
has NOT BEEN TESTED IN THE REAL WORLD.
in an economic environment.
assuming we are serious about BCH becoming a global currency. under that scenario, no vulnerability will be left untouched.
1st decade devs have proven to be a vulnerability,
miners are now taking control
to do their job,
Secure the network, reduce risk of failure
Guaranteeing BCH as a global currency.
hashrate has final word indeed. simple realpolitik.
