Quote from: jbreher on August 29, 2018, 03:24:05 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 29, 2018, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 28, 2018, 04:14:46 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 22, 2018, 04:59:04 AM

Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?

No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner.

But it is already common knowledge that there is a cartelization or centralization in Bitcoin mining, and Jihan Wu controls the largest hash rate.

Depends upon how one interprets the figures. ATM, Coingeek is the largest BCH mining pool. Jihan seems committed also to supporting the mining of BTC.

That would be the "safe" answer. But miner centralization is already common knowledge.

Quote

If he redirected his hashpower to BCH, it may swing the balance, and may not. It may also invoke a catastrophic crash in hashpower on the BTC chain -- one that BTC may never recover from, as BTC has no ability to retarget difficulty due to step-function changes in hashpower.

But it would also open an opportunity for other miners, pro-Jihan or anti-Jihan because it would be the most practical and profitable choice for them.

Quote

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on August 28, 2018, 04:23:52 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 28, 2018, 06:06:10 AM

In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?

Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.

Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?

I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities.

By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'.

If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result?

Yes it will die because they are only a small part of the network. They will be forced to follow Jihan Wu or become irrelevant. But what if Cobra's #UANF has gained the momentum like the UASF and NO2X? Wouldn't that show that non-mining node numbers also matter?

No, it would not. What it would show is that the miners respect their interpretation of the desires of the economic majority.

[/quote]

If Segwit as a soft fork, to kill AsicBoost was desired by the Bitcoin Cash's economic majority, would Bitmain and Jihan Wu respect it and activate it immediately?

I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter. Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners?