the ironic thing is ocean is basically trying the centralized mining attack they raised money from investors to prevent, but they have no hash so cant pull it off
Login to reply
Replies (81)
How is it an attack?
I would like to know, too!
this is so retarded and fucked up "thinking" ... its not even funny
if you have a significant majority of hash you can try to force through a fork that nobody else wants and the only way to prevent it is for everyone else to fork in response
Ocean is a pool, pools are centralized by their very nature. Ocean created and promotes DATUM which is decentralized by default. You are either being misleading or lying, which is it?
It's consensus valid, isn't that the only thing that matters?
Nodes define what Bitcoin is, don't forget that.
And ocean is trying to do this? Is this related to b110?
luke cant pull it off because ocean has negligible hash but that is exactly what he is trying to do
It isn't. Broadcasting consensus valid blocks is a thought crime to ODELL now.
Time will tell but miners have no incentive to mine spam that will be rejected by Bitcoin nodes.
a soft fork that steals satoshis bitcoin would also be consensus valid
but if a small few try to push that through without consensus they will fail
same with bip110
Is there ever any true consensus in bitcoin? lol
Luke isn't producing the block templates or hashing the transactions. He didn't even write the BIP He just advocates for it and included it in knots. You can mine a block full of inscriptions with DATUM and Ocean will broadcast that block just like every other node.
And after September, if you don't run a URSF, you node will rebroadcast RDTS blocks too.
As far as I can see Ocean's decentralized hashrate is growing.
What kind of retarded "critic" is that? Expecting that things magically happen in a day?
OCEAN - Pool Statistics
Please tell me about a soft fork that can steal coins. I would love to hear how that would work so I can stop obsessing over Bitcoin because then it will obviously fail.
there will be a chain split almost immediately post bip110, since the overwhelming majority of hash will mine transactions that are not valid in your fork
your side will have basically no hash
as i said above, he is trying a centralized mining attack without the hash to back it up
delusional or malicious, doesnt really matter
Programmatic consensus.
Yes.
Social consensus.
Not really.
Miners have no incentive to mine spam that will be rejected by Bitcoin nodes.
there will be a chain split almost immediately post bip110, since the overwhelming majority of hash will mine transactions that are not valid in your fork
your side will have basically no hash
as i said above, he is trying a centralized mining attack without the hash to back it up
delusional or malicious, doesnt really matter
Miners have no incentive to mine spam that will be rejected by Bitcoin nodes.
There will be a chainsplit only if spammers fork off.
And his response to anyone who disagrees with his bullshit approach is to accuse them as a pedophile 🤣
We truly live in 🤡 🌎
The real question is is Bitcoin without spam is more valubale than Bitcoin degraded by spam, by Citrea launching shitcoins on top of Bitcoin and other spammers, scammers and bad actors as well.
I would say a BIP 110 Bitcoin of monetary Bitcoin transaciotns is more valuable.
We will see.
I've been running Bitcoin Commons BLVM and LibBitcoin, I wouldn't assume what my side is without knowing who I am.
I'm just a very technical Bitcoiner who doesn't like to see people misled.
And by the way, they said the same thing about BIP 148. "You won't have the hash power. You don't have the miners." and Yet, somehow we still have SegWit.
This is how scammers and spammers and shitcoiners like Citrea go to 0.
The project of Ocean is worthy of our respect, their attempts to push BIP-110 aside.
What is ironic is that BIP-110 will likely fail, and one major reason is that it requires 55% of miner consensus and this essentially means that it all depends on the actions of Antpool and Foundry.
Regardless of the validity ( or lack thereof) of this BIP, the fact that the final decision is really in the hands of two entities is an issue we all should be concerned about. Ocean is working to fix this and that is a good thing for Bitcoin.
Also, Ocean miners running DATUM can choose whether they signal for BIP-110 or not. So your comment here is a little unfair.
We should be spending our bitcoin and decentralizing mining nodes. This is how we actually fix the issues being discussed.
The attack is:
supporting a fork without consensus; calling anyone who disagrees a pedo or captured; implied threats to devs or miners or even node runners that they will be legally liable for *illegal* non-financial data
exactly
The attack is:
supporting a fork without consensus; calling anyone who disagrees a pedo or captured; implied threats to devs or miners or even node runners that they will be legally liable for *illegal* non-financial data
they run knots, right? that project is an attack on the bitcoin ecosystem
wrong, Core V30+ is an attack on Bitcoin because it allows more spam and shitcoins like the one Citrea just launched
thank you for saying this. Ocean is a cool project conceptually, but I wish they didn’t run knots
That is gaslighting.
The attack are spammers, scammers and shitcoiners like Citrea, OP_NET, Ordinals and others who abuse Bitcoin but the good thing is that they are getting rekt. Bitcoin Knots and BIP 110 fix it.
Running BIP110 bitcoin is money go back to eth
1. No social consensus in Bitcoin. That's not a thing. There is only protocol consensus which this BIP follows.
2. Calling people names is a non-issue to Bitcoin. Also, I find it hard to believe this is the only group inside of the Bitcoin ecosystem that has called someone a name.
3. Legal threats are only carried out by the state and as Ocean is not a state actor, I don't see what you're talking about here.
Conclusion, it's not an attack.
You’re an idiot or a liar. It’s obvious
He’s a shitbag who sold out.
Telling someone that not reporting their Bitcoin on their taxes might be illegal is not then a threat against that person by the person informing them. The threat is the state. This person is simply informing you that the state is a threat.
If you mine to them the only way to build your own blocks is DATUM. Your block template restriction is only the limits of consensus. What does that have to do with Knots? Your node can be whatever. *as long as it can feed transactions through DATUM.
Read the BIP again. 55% is the MASF. After that a UASF kicks in which is non threshold specific.
This is in reference to the mandatory signaling period where BIP-110 nodes reject all non signaling blocks starting at the difficulty epoch before September 1st correct?
As far as I understand, as long as the majority of hashrate doesn’t move to this BIP-110 chain, this will simply result in those nodes not following the longest chain.
They’re just a drop in the ocean 🥁
Not exactly. It would only need to be maybe 20% because a 20% reduction in hash rate producers on the legacy chain would cause a significant slowdown. While any block with BIP110 compliace would have 100% compliance with the legacy chain. A single block after activation would likely cascade Miner acceptance (or massive orphan risk).
The only failure modes for BIP 110 is near zero adoption (already about 10%) or a Successful URSF which has next to no discussion 2 months from activation.
@ODELL slopping like @npub17u5d...t4tp
there is no sf able to steal coins, it'd be a hf obviously
so no, not the same as bip110 at all 🤷🏻♂️
It’s an interesting point of view, though I’m unsure if things will play out the way you are thinking they will.
Also, I’m unsure where you are getting your 10% number. According to this site, signaling is more around 0.3%
BIP-110 Signaling | Wicked Smart Bitcoin
Ocean raised money to decentralize mining and discovered the fastest path back to politics is calling your policy preference consensus. Incredible bit.
Mining decentralization isn't about giving power to small miners. It's about removing power from all miners
And we, the tolerant minority, will ensure it stays that way
freezing specific bitcoin would be a soft fork definitionally, a restriction of consensus rules
just like bip110
This is what Ocean is doing, every miner with Ocean and DATUM is a sovereign miner that creates their own Bitcoin block template.
Interesting nonsense.
Compromised Core and Core V30+ increase mining centralization and facilitate spammers like Citrea who launched a shitcoin on top of Bitcoin.
Miners are part of the protocol and for Bitcoin to be Freedom Money - Bitcoin miners need to be decentralized as much as possible.
Miner signalling ≠ User signaling. UASF is node count signalling. They will reject Non-compliant blocks increasing Orphan block risk regardless of Miner action.
I do apologize, but now I am not following your line of reasoning.
Nodes are not Sybil resistant. Furthermore, 20% of nodes running BIP-110 does not influence hashrate.
Even if many people run a BIP-110 node, this does not mean the longest chain will become a BIP-110 chain. It will only result in many people running nodes that have frozen and stop seeing new blocks.
"centralized mining attack" WTF Odell What kind of booze are you drinking today? That's peak idiocy. Ocean itself havent officially declared support for BIP110. their blocks are not signalling. But you know that already. You're just spittting BS.
Okay, text is terrible for my communication style, I apologise.
20% of HASHPOWER is feasible and distinct from the sybil risk that node count might include.
If a BIP110 compliant block is found immediately after activation, that is the longest chain of work. Legacy chain nodes will verify because it is consensus valid.
If a BIP110 block is not found immediately after activation and a non-compliant is found that block maybe rejected by (as of now) 10% of the network.
In that scenario, if 2 Compliant blocks are found, that legacy block will be orphaned. That legacy miner is now incentivized to avoid that scenario.
Those are a non game theoretical look at a how it could play out. A game theoretic prisoner's dilemma scenario would be:
After BIP110 activates, a single large miner with 20% or higher hashrate defects from legacy and simultaneously subtracts 20% of the total hashrate from the legacy chain and finds a block with 100% validation by of all nodes.
The rest of the mining actors would now compete with a 20% higher difficulty while also facing block rejection from BIP 110 nodes. which incentivizes them to prepare for that eventuality and be ready to switch over to BIP110. If not, they risk mining on a dead chain.
"a little unfair" that's a understatement. It's an outright malicious antitruth.
I appreciate the repost but I wouldn’t go so far.
I think we all need to be very careful right now about how we all handle this debate. There are so many emotions and name calling.
Bitcoin as an invention is very difficult to attack, but the human network is easily manipulatable.
This is a test and an attack that I am unsure we have seen before. Therefore, we must proceed with care.
I agree with this. This is not what Luke is doing.
fuck core 30
they started this shit
where were you when it was time to speak out about that?
now let the cards fall where they may..
pikaaaah!
mandibles standard
LFG!
come on, be real: “freezing” is not “stealing”
No practical difference between the two as a user
and you getting cucked by spam is practically the same too (cuck logic 😂🤣)
bip110 rdts 🤷🏻♂️
Aww. Who hurt you little guy? 😢
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Can you explain what a centralised mining attack means?
That’s about transaction sizes, right? There is nothing controversial about removing transaction size limits. You could already split spam across transactions. And you pay per byte, so sending long payloads costs money.
so 80 Bytes OP_RETURN is good for everyone 🤙
No, clearly it’s not since it was changed. It’s an arbitrary limit that makes adding data as one transaction annoying. But the use cases you’re worried about were possible before, so it doesn’t change anything. It just makes adding longer data convenient.
If it was possible before, why did it need to be changed 🤡?
Also when you talk about "use cases" you mean launching a centralized created out of thin air slavery 💩shitcoin💩 on top of Bitcoin like Citrea did 🤡
You mean enabling scammers, spammers and shitcoiners 🤡
Google it
please read comments by nullc here https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kg107x/
please read the following note from top to bottom and realize the evidence
This is the true history of OP_RETURN events.
The OP_RETURN Limit Removal: Gaslighting or Technical Necessity?
that note does not make sense, so I linked to something that does. as i explained above, nothing changed majorly because of that
So the truth does not make sense to you? Okay. I think Ethereum and other shitcoins are more suitable for you.
We Bitcoiners reject Core30's proposed addition of data storage to Bitcoin
i have already answered everything, so I am going to block you now. and no, core is fine
Hahahah, lol, Core is so corrupt and compromised its absolute shitshow.
Shut your eyes wide, the truth may be inconvinient for you Ethereum boy.
This one looks to me like an Andy Back internt : ))) Coretard
It's also ironic how much BIP 110 spam I get in my comments section
Fighting spam with spam
Sorry for dropping the ball on this discussion. Never saw the reply.
I appreciate the civil discourse. However, I do interpret there to be several bad assumptions here.
Furthermore, I’d prefer to highlight a greater point. I find it odd that so many in our space are trying to argue that it’s possible for a small minority to change the rules of Bitcoin.
Regardless of the validity (or lack thereof of BIP110) , I think we should all be more vigilant.
Given the centralization of mining pools, if BIP110 succeeds, it would set a very bad precedent.