How minority POW chains can enforce their rules without facing an existential threat

[Anonymous No.9516913]

What I mean by "minority POW" is when a political council of economic actors decides that they want to enforce a set of consensus rules, no matter how large that council is if they don't have more than the majority of POW in a given algorithm on board with those changes. The big case in point for this would be Bitcoin core, as it's a well known fact that the vast majority of POW is hostile to their consensus rules, and the only reason they survive at all is because said POW hasn't seen fit to destroy them at this stage.
First off, why is this desirable? Why should some small political council be able to enforce their consensus rules, no matter how ridiculous they are, over the objections of the global distributed POW that could otherwise mine their chain? I won't dedicate a lot of time to this one other than to observe that it already is somewhat possible simply by switching the POW algorithm to something else. If people see fit to implement a set of consensus rules in their economic bloc, no matter how idiotic they are, there is no reason they should not have the technical means to do that, even if the inevitable result is that the market values their instrument poorly based on the idiocy of those consensus rules.
(c)

[Anonymous No.9516925]

Anyway, onto the meat of the method.
Shouldn't it be possible to simply salt the blocks with a proof of burn from earlier in the chain in order to require miners to have some actual stake *in that particular chain*? This would mean that as time went on and stakeholders in the chain provided this proof of burn, they could using their private keys act as an isolated group of miners in much the same way as a proof of work change would allow them to act, but still using the exact same hardware they'd originally purchased for the purpose of mining on their chain. Their hashes would not be "competing" with the unsalted hashes, and only the salted hashes would be viewed as valid for mining on the chain at the point the minority POW was chosen as the one going forward to secure the chain.
The exact amount and nature of the burn transactions in the chain to provide the POW are left as an exercise to the political council in question to decide. The core point is that the raw POW itself doesn't need to change, so you can still have for example a proof of burn from the keys of the people who support the bcore plan to the exclusion of all else, and from that point on only mining performed with an added salt requiring the private key to that proof of burn is viewed as a valid block on the chain.
This would work, right? Can anyone pick a hole in it?

[Anonymous No.9516944]

but they can't. the chinks tried, and they were btfo, so they had to start their own fork, "cash", where they can set any rules they want.

the only problem is even with all of the manipulation they're doing, online, even on 4chan, nobody is actually buying any "cash" from them, they even desperately tried to force you to use it when buying ASICs as the only payment option, it also didn't work.

[Anonymous No.9516985]

>>9516944
They can, it's a simple fact, if bitmain wanted to 51% attack the core chain at any point in time, they could with the greatest of ease, in fact they wouldn't even have to manually do it, all they'd need to do is maliciously fork or mint a new chain that provided a profitability rating that was always 20% higher than the BTC reward, and 90% of sha256 volume would attack it for them.
Personally I think the core political rules are absolutely idiotic, but that's no reason that they shouldn't be able to set their own rules and have them respected. At the moment they have no technical way of making that happen, period.

[Anonymous No.9516993]

>>9516913
>be a cashie
>wright LONG boring post about things I don't understand, with faulty arguments and unrelated quotations
>thread turns into shouting match
>some fuck says "hey, they're both shit"
>ahhhh. Another productive day at the office. In china.

[Anonymous No.9517009]

>>9516993
It's hilarious that even when people are trying to help you realise your idiotic goals, you still can't even actually understand it or evaluate the actual nash equilbriums involved.

[Anonymous No.9517442]

>>9516913
>>9516925
You're making it way to complicated.

They are mining BTC and then selling it all in batches, while buying BCH with it. That's what those "random" pumps have been over the past several months.

They are getting paid to shovel shit, then use that money towards something productive - buying BCH.

But the miners don't have a lot of time left. Their window is closing and I think they only have until end of summer 2018 to switch chains.

[Anonymous No.9518301]

>>9517442
You're right on the situation between BCH and BTC, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, although I am curious as to what you mean by end of summer 2018, because as I see it a SHA256 hash is a SHA256 hash (at the moment) and you can mine whatever SHA256 chain you want with SHA256 equipment.

The thing I'm talking about is a method to make that *not* the case. So a minority can fork off and secede with what they view as "better consensus rules" and they will not be vulnerable to attack from the majority of the hashing power if they want to shut them down. Without this any minority chain is potentially at an existential threat from the majority hash power, you see?

[Anonymous No.9518363]

Look, this is important, there's only a certain amount of POW algorithms available, and at the moment switching the POW algo is a nuclear option to be used only in extreme emergencies. This would give the option of infinite peaceful free secession and proper SPV wallets without needing to run a full node for every single transactor in the ecosystem if it is actually correct.
The only people who would be damaged by this are people who want to keep chains with divergent interests and views on the best consensus rules forced together.
bump.

[Anonymous No.9518858]

>>9518301
Good points. You are correct.

>summer 2018

Tether. It's going to be worse than Gox. BCH will be the only one to come out of it strong for the most part, so they will become majority without really having to try. Miners will have to go by their rules, simply to stay profitable.

[Anonymous No.9518947]

lol bcash

[Anonymous No.9518980]

"how do we stop from being endangered by a double spending shitfest on our shitchain from the actual Bitcoin miners" the thread

[Anonymous No.9519213]

>>9518980
... Are you really so deluded you think the miners are on core's side? Christ, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this stage given how stupid you coretards are but that's just a breathtaking level of ignorance.
To reiterate; this thread is actually a discussion about *how to give you what you want*, a minority hashing power chain not subject to attack by majority hashing power.

[Anonymous No.9519227]

>>9518858
How are you so certain on the timeline? Isn't gox even more actually pretty similar in terms of outstanding exposure? ( about 2.5B)

[Anonymous No.9519305]

>>9518858
If BTC starts getting destroyed, I really doubt that it will cause BCH to flourish. I expect people to either convert to fiat and leave crypto, or go to alts that are not involved in BTC/BCH drama. I know I would rather be holding cash at that point.

[Anonymous No.9519334]

>>9516985
lol, no you late adopter, they can't.

they can try, and the plan created from the very beginning of bitcoin to counteract 51% attacks will be executed, and that will be the end of that.

the miners have NO CONTROL, AS DESIGNED.

[Anonymous No.9519350]

>>9516985
the late adopter perspective is really something special.

bitcoin biggest weakness, miner centralization, causes it to "fail" in some spectacular way, and then everyone is going to rush into some bitcoin clone (bcash, litecoin, etc) that didn't even solve the miner problem themselves.

it just reeks of desperation and delusion.

[Anonymous No.9519370]

>>9519334
Whats the plan?

[Anonymous No.9519389]

>>9516913
Minorities shouldn’t control your decisions

The blockchain is anathema to anti white racists who need to enforce “equality” by disadvantaging the majority

[Anonymous No.9519404]

>>9519334
>the miners have NO CONTROL, AS DESIGNED.


How the fuck have we fallen this far into the stupid hole? We have newfags who have no idea how mining work, think Non-mining nodes can "reject" blocks, and push for sidechains run by big business.

[Anonymous No.9519418]

>>9516913
What a bunch of sleazeballs.

[Anonymous No.9519453]

>>9516913

[Anonymous No.9519475]

>>9519404
because people don't have critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous No.9519521]

>>9519475

At least I'll enjoy a hearty laugh when these faggots get their comeuppance

[Anonymous No.9519558]

>>9516993
>Be Corecuck
>Can't stop sucking Core cock

[Anonymous No.9519737]

>>9519389
But a group of minorities should be able to peacefully secede with what they believe to be superior consensus rules. Even if that results in them being sanctioned by the market, etc. That's fine. The point is though they should be able to, they are not harming anybody who stays behind on the old chain, they're just making a move off to rules they think are appropriate.

[Anonymous No.9519748]

>>9519305
The fact of the matter is the original vision of Bitcoin always was what BCH is. If people who don't understand that want to run away, fine. It doesn't change that fact though.

[Anonymous No.9519772]

>>9519334
The counterattack is to pow switch. To what though? The exact power that they're trying to flee from controls *every other pow algorithm available also*.
Adding salts signed by a proof of stake key gives the effect of proof of work change, because without the salt the blocks are not valid, without actually just walking into the exact same situation your clueless technically incompetent thoroughly deluded ass walked out of.

[Anonymous No.9520114]

>>9516913
>11 posts by this ID

Oh boy, can't you just unplug your buttplug and enjoy life?