@Tauri | Bitcoin BLAKE2b (XBT), @mleku This is exactly why I proposed the quantum upgrade because of guys like @shadowbip. Unfortunately, they represent the majority of bitcoiners now. You have to issue a new narrative that inspires them to switch over from JeffryCoin as, clearly, having a decentralized pleb controlled kitty porn resistant chain is of no value to them.

We don’t have to convince anyone. If we’re correct into assuming that things in Bitcoin-SHA256 are just going to get worse from now on, this means Bitcoin’s parabolic runs are over. There’s going to be a few pumps here and there, but you guys simply don’t understand: what the pools did on 8/8/26 is a de facto *moving from PoW to PoS*. See how this worked for Ethereum. The bigger the stake you have in Bitcoin from now on, the bigger your influence. And who has bigger influence than BlackRock, Saylor and a few others. The network of nodes is not stopping them at this point. Plebs will gradually realise this over the course of the next 5-6 years and either come to us by their own accord, or simply abandon Bitcoin altogether.

I agree. It is like proof of stake. stakes on pos define who validates transactions and, crucially, give voting power on protocol change proposals. If the users have no say they become customers and the miners effectively become custodians. you have got me thinking now about how to mitigate this attack other than benevolent dictator for life enforcing ossification. democracy is not the answer, it is debate and jurisprudence. But how to reduce the labor cost without opening a hole.

and this is why my "limenka" fork ( @Tauri | Bitcoin BLAKE2b (XBT) you may maybe know this is the word for aluminium drink can in serbian) specifically has focused on making the chain able to survive hostile miners, and massive shrinks of hashpower. this breaks the miner veto power and moves the power back to the users, via the "judges" who are the ones who build the implementations. you know your biblical history pretty good, this was how the israelites were told to run their system, even one of the books of the bible is a direct reference to this "Judges". before David became king, the law was enforced by competing judges who had fans and whose judgements were paid for in cases of lawsuits, and parties could appeal to another judge if they didn't like one judge's judgement, and the impartiality of the judges became their currency. if they judged unfairly, they got ignored by the people, and became irrelevant. this is exactly how bitcoin should be running. i am calling mine limenka because it is a reference to edge (limen) and aluminium cans (money for people on the edge of society) and a reference to the fact that IT CANNOT HAVE A CENTER. that can only happen with competition. the threads are forks. the users are the fans who choose which implementation to run. your insight about how miners have become stakeholders and making governance calls is spot on, and inspired this. i have already built a foundation of how to fork bitcoin so that the miners no longer have the power to take the chain hostage.

Is it going to be BLAKE2d compatible?

in order to survive being minor hostile, the difficulty adjustment has to be completely changed. and i iterated through dozens of options, multi-interval block versions, the use of a verifiable delay function to stop hostile sidechain censorship attacks, the difficulty adjustment parameters and algorithm had to be adjusted, simulated. i eventually came up with a scheme where the chain switches its anchoring to block height and instead bytes and time become the cadence rule. early blocks must be smaller, and get smaller rewards, exactly proportional. later blocks get to have a higher size limit, and the reward is based on the limit - in the rare case a block doesn't use all of its allowed limit. activations are triggered on median time past instead of block height. so, yeah, that's a no. and it uses sha256 *specifically* to both dare the big miners to try and attack it, as well as a lure that pulls them away from mining bitcoin core spamchain bitcohen. why does this matter? because the ultra simple difficulty adjustment is WHY bip-110 could not succeed without the miners consent. it's WHY you can't "fire the miners". it is specifically a goal of my design to, should the exchange value become NGU, to steal miners from bitcoin and crash their shit. so, you can't change the hash function if you want to spit in their face as well as step outside the walls of their fortress. you have to change everything else that defines valid blocks.

Sounds interesting and I’m gonna root for it, but I’m going with the Bitcoin-BLAKE2b fork. I don’t see how this gets adopted by Bitcoin-SHA256.

yep. as i just elaborated, that's how decentralised bitcoin happens. my fork is deliberately designed to survive as a crazy philosopher in a barrel at the market hissing at the king. it can get more important but you can't kill it.

I like that idea.

i have thought VERY deeply about the matter and it's my warning that if you don't change the protocol to survive big miner attacks you are setting yourself up to fail.

That’s what Datum is for.

datum is a pool, not a consensus rule. these giga-miners can just descend on your chain and take a giant dump and blow their giant dragon flames at it if they want to

That’s what the changed algo is for. Their rigs become useless. The new asics are spread out among different vendors, they need to be fine tunded manually and plebs are already buying them. If big miners care enough about attacking us, they’d just make the case for us: that what we’re doing is more important. Unlike the beta cucks at core we’re ready to fight any attack and improve our defences as we go.

how much do you think it costs for let's say, 20% of Sia asic farms for like 10 minutes?

and that's the obvious, special purpose route. amazon and google and many others are running giant farms of GPUs that can do the job too. a spamcoin whale with motivation can destroy bitcoin-blake2b's cadence in 20 seconds and probably under $10000 worth of rental cost

I don’t care. Let them do their worst.

I welcome the effort.

well, p2spkh schnorr signatures with standard sha256/ripemd160 hash shielded, and p2bpct (pay to bullet proofs (mimblewimble kernel based) confidential transactions. and once it has lightning, source routed transaction propagation (opt in, but advisable) the sats are for transactions so it's a tiny cost but important to not open a gate to spam attacks on the p2p network. so, yeah. privacy is all part of the plan, as is independence of tor. monero delinks the utxos fully but that comes at a cost i don't think is worth paying if you can eliminate location triangulation and utxos with no amounts are a web you can't chain analyse.

i've already finished the build. just a last double check and launching a testnet. i need to upgrade my server infrastructure, also, sick to death of dealing with interserver.net shit, their VNC interface exposes a fucking GUI ffs what the hell. slow motion remote control desktop on a machine that is already nearly full of processes, bitcoin, alby, lnd, git web host, smesh.mleku.dev web app, and so on. i probably need to spend a bit and i'm going to relocate it to kazakhstan so my path to it is short and fast. testnet will be up and running sometime in the next week. i have set the activation timestamp as 9am new york time, 18 october, the 6th anniversary of event 201 pandemic game. as i see it, the scamdemic is the scar that has shaped almost everything in the world right now, including the wars and even the situation with bitcoin.

yeah, i would like to radically refactor the codebase when i get the time, i know it's adequate so it's fine for now. plus i know exactly what it does. i've written much of the same code. i found a bug in my NWC client code today, in fact. i could probably build something simpler and more useful in a few days.