You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Shocking Crisis Coming to Cryptocurrency (in Sept?)

in #cryptocurrency3 years ago (edited)

Mircea Popescu and others analyzed my theory.

Mircea Popescu wrote:

exactly the same play. oh, we "buy" bitcoin crash [BCH]. if it takes, it's good. if it doesn't take, guess what, segwit unroll later.

Or they’re selling the Bitcoin trash (BCH) for fiat (or planning to after BCH pump when they attack BTC) after buying it with BTC they intend to double-spend with the SegWit unroll later, in order to increase their funding for the unroll. Then they use the fiat to buy more BTC.

summary : he's trying to make sense of the political posturing of fiat entities, arrives at the conclusion…

Maybe the globalist DEEP STATE is bullish on the real BTC, having pseudonomynously created it for creative destruction of their antiquated nation-state fiats as the Hegelian dialectic for their NWO fiat. They’ll use (and abuse) their nation-state fiat apparatus to obscure their ambitions. The theory being the ones pulling the strings of the DEEP STATE are in control of the nation-state fiat regimes to the extent that navigating a 747 with engines on fire is controllable.

Maybe Mircea Popescu is not the largest BTC whale after all.

Roughly 50% of the money supply is always held by the masses (as money tends to be power-law distributed). If the masses can be fooled, then the control the system transfers to those who control the masses. This is yet another reason that Satoshi’s PoW is highly flawed; and why I am formulating a replacement (which is not PoS either), which I posit solves this dilemma.

now, if this is the plan it's not a very good one (you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able) but anyway

ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds.

Reorganization is always possible if the booty is large enough AND the reorganized chain is the legitimate one everyone wants. Well heck if the Core-SegWit chain is the one creating a booty and the forking of scaling alternatives such as Bitcoin Trash creating more double-spendable booty as I posited, then the real Bitcoin is the only legitimate Schelling point.

ben_vulpes the substantial weakness segwit adds to bitcoin chain security is that witout it, one needs the power to unwind the chain AND the keys of old txn to steal bitcoin. whereas with it, one only needs the hash power, as anyone can spend the segwit shit.

Thanks for making me aware of that some weeks ago. So also add the Bitcoin Trash-enabled booty to that, to finance the blockchain reorganization back to ~Aug 1.

so in this sense it makes securing the chain more expensive, which is a legitimate 2nd goal of usg.

The miners who are mining the SegWit and BCH trash and aren’t selling their mined tokens for fiat or to greater fools (who are ignorantly willing to accept double-spendable BTC), could end up losing it. Continuing to mine at a loss on the SegWit & BCH forks after they are furked, in order to protect the tokens they mined would be a losing proposition, so let’s safely presume the miners are offloading their mined tokens as soon as the 100 block (~17 hours) holdback period is completed. Thus, this is in essence double-spent BTC also when the chain reorganization comes, because the miners cashed out to fiat (so the attack costs them nothing because by crashing the price all they do is push the marginal miners off the chain, which are ASIC miners they sold to the marginal miners after mining with them when they were first manufactured).

Thus ultimately anyone who wants Bitcoin to have a stable security has to end their support for nonsense “scaling” forks of Bitcoin.

But it may be too late…

asciilifeform (aka “alf”) wrote:

the 3rd goal is to make the 'softfork' liquishit ' a necessity ' somehow, to harden it
'It Would Be Wrong if indeed anyone-could-spend' etc

Mircea Popescu wrote:

right, maybe there's some color-of-bits finally imported into bitcoin this way ? please ? so usg can still has a point in world ?

anyway, 0 shits given, becoming "more subtle" does not help the cattle empire. if the blunt didn't work, the sharp is a lulz.

If the outcome I’m positing comes to fruition, it will mean that every fork of Bitcoin is a threat which requires coloring UTXO based upon their age, with older UTXO worth more than newer. Because buyers will value older UTXO more, since less probability of being stolen by a chain reorganization .

This is death to Bitcoin as a decentralized, fungible token system. Cryptonote/Monero anonymity could not help , because ring signatures only attempt to obscure potential sender identity, but do nothing to obscure the timing of UTXO formation. Whereas, the Zerocash zkSNARKs anonymity technology does obscure the timing of UTXO formation!

I wrote:

Amplify this with the lack of black-swans to upset that trend, because for example there are only two 14nm/16nm ASIC fabs in the world: GlobalFoundries and TSMC; thus the elite of most cost-efficient ASIC mining have the future locked down:

@peronero wrote:

Not sure how to take seriously any 'decentralize mining' proposal that would centralize mining in two US-based corporations subject to export regulations that already restrict the proliferation of high-end hardware along political lines.

I believe Mircea Popescu has gravely miscalculated. Either he has been coloring his own BTC within the danger period (i.e. being careful of the lineage of the BTC obtained in recent times), else his BTC is also susceptible to being stolen. Otherwise, he would need vast mining resources to maintain his own fork or he would need to penalize/bribe miners to not steal his BTC where it is so encumbered. He can penalize by selling the fork and buying another honest one, but he will need sufficient mining resources and other significant BTC holders to enjoin him in this fight. Rather I think most astute BTC holders will realize this is the end of the paradigm and liquidate.

He can create a fork which offers to reinstate the stolen BTC, but those BTC can’t be sold on the dishonest fork any more. So the leverage is minimal.

It was always assumed that miners had no incentive to destroy Bitcoin because of their hardware investment, but this doesn’t factor in that cratering the price mostly impacts only the marginal miners, because the network difficulty and hashrate adjusts down to the new lower price level. Those who have the control over the only two 14nm fabs in the world, thus remain profitable even with a cratered price. Add the conspiracy theory on top of that, which is TPTB which control those ASIC fabs have absolute power/control as their primary objective, not profit.

Proof-of-work is dead.

@anonymous wrote:

I'm intrigued by this idea of mining TRB (the real Bitcoin), but I have no idea how to do that cause I've never mined. Is there potential opportunity if someone started this movement? You said you're busy, but maybe somebody that follows you is familiar with mining.

No. The ASIC miners will dominate this outcome. They are going to steal a lot of BTC, if I am correct about their plans. I just do not know when they will initiate the chain reorganization. Appears they can wait an indefinite amount of time to maximize the damage.

Edit: Mircea Popescu could change the proof-of-work hash function and mine his own fork. They’re contemplating a hash function which requires an unbounded amount of memory to validate. But then the security is vulnerable to botnets and hacked Amazon/Azure accounts, unless there is enough demand for this fork and enough honest people interested to mine it. This is a plausible defense against the ASIC monopoly. In my analysis is that it is impossible to make a hash function which can’t be made orders-of-magnitude more efficient with customized hardware. However, if the community is willing to hard fork the PoW algorithm every time some malfeasance occurs via the ASIC miners, then the ASIC miners could in theory be punished this way. In order to kill the dishonest fork and incentivize the masses to come over to the honest one, the community has to be united on this sort of war, and they need enough old UTXO BTC to sell on the dishonest fork in order to have pricing leverage to drive support for the honest fork. Because otherwise, the masses who were defrauded on the dishonest work, may sell their tokens on the honest fork as well due to lack of PUBLIC confidence (remember money only has value due to public confidence). Those on the honest fork may careless and continue to use their honest BTC amongst themselves in their own TMSR economy, which I guess Mircea Popescu thinks is the only productive economy and thus over time the masses who do not join it become worthless. Note afaics, the hash function they are contemplating would be a DDoS amplification flaw if employed as the PoW algorithm.

So I correct my prior statement. Perhaps Mircea Popescu possibly has not made a grave miscalculation. If they do change the PoW algorithm, then it may also become worthwhile to mine while there are no ASICs for this new PoW function, if you have the economy-of-scale to obtain lowest possible cost electricity. Yet if the TPTB have masterful viruses and hacking, perhaps they can steal also via lowest cost mining, much of the value on this new fork with botnets and hacked server accounts.

Besides, proof-of-work is incentives incompatible as the block reward declines relative to transaction fees. Proof-of-work is not viable long-term, unless it is monopolized by an oliarchy. My upcoming blog will explain this in technical detail and explain my solution.

No matter how you slice it, Mircea Popescu will need my new algorithm for consensus, unless he envisions an oligarchy in control of it. Otherwise, proof-of-work is not viable without perpetual inflation.

Edit#2: In March 2013, I more or less predicted this theory.

I also wrote in March 2013:

Btw this is why I fear bitcoin will crash (in FX price) after 2017…

Agreed that is why I don't want it to have weaknesses and fail when I really need it after 2017, when the chaos comes.

I think it will have a big crash and no liquidity right when I need it. It will be useless and you won't be able to get your money out. Any way, that is my fear.

I am working on a solution, but I am discouraged now, because I don't think anyone understands or cares or is interested.