Quote from: intense on June 14, 2017, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 14, 2017, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: intense on June 14, 2017, 02:48:08 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 14, 2017, 02:36:54 PM

Quote from: intense on June 14, 2017, 02:24:06 PM

Majority hashrate + original blockchain = Bitcoin

Majority can only be economic

Economic majority doesn't mean shit unless they put their money where their mouths are and start mining. You could have 90% of all BTC and be completely unable to stop a hardfork because it's secured by proof of work, not proof of stake. And it's the hashrate that gives users the ability to trust the network. A minority fork is worthless because it's easily subject to a 51% attack giving users no reason to trust it

You didn't answer my question

Namely, what's the purpose of mining a coin which no one is going to use? Look, you tell about 51% attack which is possible due to aggregating enough hash power in a few hands but you fail to see how this entirely nullifies your own claim that hash rate is giving users "the ability to trust the network". What trust are you talking about if all hash rate is accumulated in a pair of hands? It is not hash rate itself that matters, it is its proper distribution that secures the network (read decentralization). Further, if I had 90% of all coins, I could easily sell your fork into oblivion

You assume no one will follow but https://coin.dance/blocks shows there's plenty of miners who support big blocks and would gladly follow this fork. It's not a binary outcome either, there will be both users and hashrate moving over. And it uses the existing blockchain so all current users already have a stake in this UAHF.

Both distribution of hashrate and brute hashrate matter when it comes to trusting the network. A coin that's SHA256 based is easily attacked if it hasn't got sufficient hashrate to fend off established miners from other networks with significantly higher hashrates. And if you sell your 90% hypothetical stake of coins all you're doing is redistributing them and altering a price, this has zero effect on the direction of the protocol.

Oh, I see that now raw hashing power is nowhere near enough to secure network?

Other networks cannot attack Bitcoin network unless they become part of this network, i.e. start mining Bitcoin, right? So it still inevitably comes down to hash power distribution, whether you like it or not. Anyway, you still have to explain how Wu is going to make his network "secure" given that he will be the one controlling it (if it does indeed come down to "distribution of hashrate"). Regarding big blocks and miners supporting them, first, we don't know how these miners are different from Jihan Wu and his accomplices (and whether they are not in fact the same bastards), and, second, as I guess, this is not the same as supporting Wu's ultimatum, to begin with

Quote from: soul-impact on June 14, 2017, 03:58:50 PM

I think we should commend his actions, this is not something that is done for personal gain, it is for the benefit of all. We should feel grateful to him, but you are too exasperated to say that he should feel honored.

I'm curious if you are serious