Quote from: thejaytiesto on March 28, 2017, 01:55:33 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 28, 2017, 02:39:49 AM

Quote from: jornaldobitcoin on March 28, 2017, 02:34:09 AM

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

see my other thread, which was inspired by this one.

Banks don't have to bribe miners, they can get almost free hash power by investing in cloud mining. And they will play both sides of the scaling debate off each other, which is why miners voting won't work anymore.

Big bitcoin players just need to agree on a scaling solution and execute leadership.