Create account

replied 2309d
En Fri Mand
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.
1 / 32 1
En Fri Mand
replied 2309d
interesting. didn't know he started this lie.
homopit
replied 2309d
Not a lie. Selfish mining is a threat. Research the topic, before believing what ppl say.
2
567
replied 2308d
And it is a threat because it never did any harm?

Magnetic poles of the Earth reversing themselves is a threat.
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2309d
Why don't the rest of your troll friends buy some BCH so they can spout off here?
1
3,000
homopit
replied 2308d
moron
En Fri Mand
replied 2308d
sorry. I was too quick there.
replied 2309d
there is zero proof that SM is a threat,
it's based on a model different to what bitcoin is.
homopit
replied 2309d
Research.
replied 2309d
provide the proof.
homopit
replied 2308d
Research
replied 2308d
the onus is on those that make the claim to provide proof.
homopit
replied 2308d
You know there is the paper, you brought it up. It is on you now.
replied 2308d
The paper based on an hypothesis

All words, zero testing.
homopit
replied 2308d
Yeah, yaeh, I get you, the threat is not a threat, until it's executed. Come on, get real.
replied 2308d
LN has a paper as well, it works perfectly there.

Means nothing, if anything adds weight to what I'm saying.
Next?
homopit
replied 2308d
You make no sense.
replied 2308d
I have where it counts, thank you.

And goodbye.
1
3,000
replied 2309d
nope, mining is competitive in nature.
WHY would miners collude to kill a business they've invested millions of dollars, time and reputation in?
replied 2309d
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.
replied 2309d
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.
replied 2308d
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
1
replied 2308d
"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.
1
replied 2308d
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).
1
replied 2308d
theoretical threat
what IS that?

Something that looks dangerous on paper

or in peoples' minds?
1
3,000
replied 2307d
dude, the math checks out. in some cases it is possible for miners to gain small advantages over others with less hashrate.
2
replied 2307d
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.
5
1,546
replied 2307d
similary SM threat ought to be mitigated by design, well in advance of it becoming economically significant.
1
replied 2307d
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.
replied 2307d
*dude*
replied 2308d
assuming we are serious about BCH becoming a global currency. under that scenario, no vulnerability will be left untouched.
replied 2308d
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.
6
11,546
replied 2308d
hashrate has final word indeed. simple realpolitik.
6
8,013


About Privacy Terms Stats