I saw on article on here about the sabbatical. It sure looks like a proof-of- work overhaul designed to revive the fork is moving ahead.
“Current plan is later today we announce with blockhash-to-algo mapping HASH, tomorrow 14:00 UTC we publish mapping as soon as there’s a corecoin block to compare to it.
Does anyone else get the feeling that Luke expected the outcome of BIP-110 and wanted a segregated version of Bitcoin all along?
I’ve had a similar idea. I was genuinely surprised by the shift that happened at some point in the process to focus so strongly on certain type of content that might end up embe in a block. It follows the fear tactics that most governments are using at the moment to push for age verification and restriction on access to the internet. To me it didn’t align with protecting Bitcoin from wallstreet. But hey, just an observation on my side.
Exactly. I’ve lost the old joy in the project and the idea. Your point on focusing on more common valuables is definitely a more healthy path.
I think it was aantonop who many many years ago introduced me to one of the ways of Bitcoin. First they ignore it, then ridicule it, then they tell you only criminals use it and if all else fails they throw everything at it. You can’t “threaten” the most powerful people in finance without getting a fight that few will survive. And clearly the good guys are not on the invite list at Saylor and Larry Fink’ dinner parties.
Keep fighting the good fight of separating money and state. This time BTC is captured by the ‘suits’. A hard fork will at least give a signal and hopefully it works out a fresh decentralised bitcoin chain. I will keep my money on the f* btc chain for now. But when a new chain appears I wil relocate 1/10th and start mining there.
Love this wild game. Let’s move on.
There can be but not without action. Bitcoin needs to be actively maintained and pivoted as new threats and landscapes emerge. This hardfork Luke is working on IS a reaction to the centralization of Bitcoin. If hardforking is seen as taboo then Bitcoin has no mechanism by which to survive. Hardforking is part of Bitcoin.
Exactly. So what mechanism does Bitcoin have to protect itself once it’s been captured? How can Bitcoin fight against a handful of miners deciding what Bitcoin is? A hardfork. That’s it.
After having a few days to think about this with a clearer head, I think this wasn’t the correct way to look at the split. I still intend to invest the bulk of my time in continuing the fight on the legacy chain, while there is still ground left to fight on. But I think it actually makes sense to remain plugged in to the new chain side of the split, and to run a node, help folks out with technical issues, record some tutorials if I find a topic where I think I can contribute, etc.
So, for now I will use “Bitcoin” in a broader context that encompasses both camps, and when I need to differentiate I will use “legacy chain” and “new chain” until new terms for them have been settled on and broadly adopted.
I’ve come to the same conclusion about staying “plugged in” as I think it is worth the effort. I will still stay in the battle on the legacy chain with node 1 but I plan to run the fork client and mine on node 2.
I’m pleased to hear that you will help where you can as I’ve come to trust you as a reputable source to help me navigate through the complexity that arise and would suck if I didn’t have someone with your knowledge to learn from.
Block 5 - 38 minutes ok
Paul, I don’t know too much about mining, so had a question for you. Is there a way to infer a kind of market expectation of value of the new POW coin based on these mined blocks? I guess it’s not transparent what the cost of mining is here but was curious. Thanks!
I don’t think so. If there are no exchanges listing it, this will start with just whatever value people place onto it, and then market forces will drive it down at first until it discovers a floor. It will either find stability there if it is successful and grow, or continue to trend downward as the network is abandoned.
If we approach it from one of the driving factors (electricity cost) we can probably place a ceiling in the short term at the peak Sia global hash rate, which was somewhere around 29 PH/s. If we do a lot of hand-wavy math and assumptions, this is roughly ball-park $3,000 / day in electricty to run the entire network (yes, we are going back to ground level here..) If we break that into 10 minute blocks and the current block subsidy, it comes to (if my math is correct) around $7 per BTC.
I’m very glad you’ve come around, Paul. No one knows what the future holds, and this doesn’t have to be a mutually exclusive decision. It’s perfectly reasonable to straddle both chains for a while and wait until we have a clearer picture of how things play out.
For me, I’ve reached a point where I see only two possible outcomes:
The BIP110 chain fails. If that happens, then everything I thought Bitcoin was, and everything I believed it was capable of being, will have proven false. At that point, I’ll exit the space entirely and wind down all of my Core chain holdings.
The BIP110 chain succeeds. By success, I don’t necessarily mean becoming the dominant chain overnight. I mean it continues producing blocks, continues being built on, and eventually establishes viable fiat on/off ramps. If that happens, even with a relatively small group of people who share my values and ideas about what Bitcoin is supposed to be, I’ll continue mining, interacting with, and building in the BIP110 ecosystem while winding down my Core chain position.
Either way, the Core chain is dead to me. I don’t see a path back from what I view as an obvious capture and centralization of the network. To me, that invalidates many of the fundamental assumptions and beliefs I had about what Bitcoin is, and what it was supposed to be. I’m no longer able to orange pill or convince relatives, friends, coworkers that Core chain Bitcoin is worth taking a risk on because a lot of the concerns they’ve presented over the years have proven to be valid.
Sorry, there was a problem in my math (I ran the numbers for current Sia global hashrate, despite quoting peak Sia hashrate). Peak would come to $9,000–$11,000/day in electricity costs for the network, which works out to around $20–$24 per BTC (but double-check my math, because it is not my strong suit..)
Thanks Paul I appreciate the response! My question was actually with respect to the Roughnecks blocks that have come in post Aug 8. Or are is the block reward + fee there still based on the bundeled SHA + Blake? Not sure if that makes sense, I’m probably confused, ha.
Right now, the bitcoin Roughnecks have mined cannot be spent (freshly minted UTXOs are frozen for like 100 blocks IIRC). So by the time they are spendable, the new hard fork chain will be well underway (and presumably nobody will continue mining SHA256 on the stalled chain, which would be financial suicide). Since bitcoin is fungible, it doesn’t matter whether a UTXO was mined before or after the hard fork – the bitcoin on the new chain will all converge on whatever the market decides to value it at, independant of the bitcoin value on the legacy chain (which is not fungible with bitcoin on the new chain).
Thank you Paul! I had a couple of incorrect assumptions previously, but I think all clear now.
Wow! I’ve been monitoring and was wondering when it would happen.
(Regarding the newly mined block. I forgot to quote your original message)
Would it be possible to run both chains on the Start9 (ONE) server. Perhaps a pruned version of the fresh HF BLAKE2b . That would be great to jump from one another and follow both. I will keep HODL on the 'Core’suitchain but will also start participating on the fresh bitcoinchain and do what is possible to make it a succes. Exciting times.
