Damus
JackTheMimic · 3d
Because the difficulty adjustment keeps increasing as more machines are aquired to keep up with the previous difficulty. Yes, I know quite a few that have no clue what the network is doing. They just...
paxchristi profile picture
I see you’re point is ultimately about miner centrality more than the op_return thing that sparked the bip110 fork, and that, that is what according to you has revealed that “miners are in control” or rather the mining pools. But do you think the mining pools colluded to make the op _return the first leg in the boiling frogs play? Add in they were the ones that put the pressure on core?

You said the miners you know don’t know jack about what’s happening on the network, by that do you mean they if you are listening, aimlessly provide hash to one of the pools that are the ultimate colluders?

And are you saying that these miners (and by extension you presumably mean most if not all miners) will forever follow these mining pools towards a scenario of fully capturing bitcoin (what does this look like btw?)?

What evidence can you provide for all of this?

Because right now I see Bitcoin doing what it always does, I’ve changed my op_return seeing back to 43bytes.

I just don’t see the colluding thing, I just see nodes not caring. Personally I believe the 20p nodes running knots was on the high end and was definitely to some extent artificially inflated.
JackTheMimic · 20h
Collusion is not necessary for this to occur. Everyone just follows incentives. The hashers provide hash at the lowest cost they can. The pools maximize revenue by including EVERY transaction they can (regardless of node rules). Exchanges nodes will always try to maximize the amount of Bitcoin they ...