Because talk is cheap
Discussion
Hopefully these people like reading about whales then 🐳
Not sure what whales have to do with forks. Whales don’t control the network.
I didn’t imply that they did… that was kind of my point :)
nostr:nprofile1qqsytuv4el7t3jtjfm7zfrc9q730ked40806he7dx5uctxqk8j4hvfcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq32amnwvaz7tmgd9ehgtnwdaehgu3wd3skuequtaykq since I always “talk in circles” here’s a direct point… you either care about the coins in early wallets or you don’t.
Those early wallets are controlled by whales. The network controls access to those coins. The whales do not control the network. If the whales believe that their access to their coins is at risk, I promise you… those coins will be moved.
Whales watch for signals.
Further, phase c of the quantum resistant rollout offers a solution for this risk… however, it may require a fork
I haven’t been concerned about a quantum attack and this confirmed it for me
nostr:note1thfv907z7345qz26d5gwjqcr653qqvp7hjlnvpmq53rq9txqh7kqz8h8jy
I’m not concerned about a quantum attack either, I am slightly concerned about parallel programming models with massive compute and lightweight arithmetic potentially speeding up block discovery at a very low level
Wouldn’t a difficulty adjustment just take care of that?
Yes, so long as we don’t have that compute concentrated in just a few hands… do you see what I’m saying?
No I don’t. How could it concentrate in just a few hands when it’s a decentralized network?
the hardware?
For instance, it wasn’t always asics that were used to mine bitcoin… that was a shift that had to take place but during that shift we saw pooling pressure
So let’s say mining pool centralization becomes a problem and now they’re censoring transactions. What do you think happens next?
My guy… I’m not worried about them censoring transactions at that point
What are you worried about then?
The controlling group being able to outpace the honest part of the network
Okay so let’s play through this scenario rationally.
If they don’t censor transactions, then why is it a problem?
There are some very loud people that support censoring transactions
I agree. This is the risk of mining pool centralization. But I’ve played through these scenarios in my head and I think the problem is overblown. Not that it isn’t a problem or that it’ll never happen. I think it’s likely to happen and it’ll be ugly. But ultimately I think it won’t succeed for long.
What would be that absolute worst case scenario of a 51% attack… why would you and I work through this scenario? It’s been worked through a million times
Because you said you’re worried about mining pool centralization. I’m trying to understand why.
I’m not the only person worried about mining pool centralization. I think that this has been brought up in the larger community time and time again. See everyone person pushing solo mining initiatives.
But what I’m rlly worried about is advancements in low level programming. The idea that hardware will remain constrained in the ways it is today just seems totally improbable to me.
Not because this effort is being put into bitcoin but because this effort is being put into AI… there’s a chance AI labs have already stumbled upon compute that would be a threat to modern day cryptography and broader encryption schemes.
This push for quantum resistance isn’t about quantum computers… we know that quantum computers fall into a state of decoherence if the qubits are even mildly affected (ie, temperature change and/or observational tools)… IMO this is a feature rather than a bug
It’s about hardware improvements that will supersede anything we have ever seen before… the funding for this being heavily concentrated in the hands of a few, ie computational neuroscience and biohacking labs
There are other projects (ie, blockchain competitors) modeling this in hopes of applying it to supercomputing methods
How fast can math be done matters
Did you read this?
nostr:note1thfv907z7345qz26d5gwjqcr653qqvp7hjlnvpmq53rq9txqh7kqz8h8jy
You’re not answering my question
Yes I opened it. I read it. It did not pertain to anything I said. In 2020, I received a university funded grant. During that time, I did a massive deep dive on quantum physics. I’m *once again* not talking about quantum compute.
What are you talking about? You literally said this:
there’s a chance AI labs have already stumbled upon compute that would be a threat to modern day cryptography and broader encryption schemes.
Yes, I said that. And I meant it.
What are you fucking asking me!? Holy shit… this conversation makes no sense
I’m sorry. That was rude and not a way to talk to another human but I’m lost and you’re acting like I’m not making sense but you are not making sense
I have only asked questions. I haven’t made any points so idk what the confusion is about. You said you weren’t talking about quantum compute in the last note I replied to. But the quote I posted from you was talking about quantum compute.
nostr:note1sl0mddct5wc3p4rdh2p9xe5zys8vqlxzjsl7zhlyx6ez6a4cxatsreek4e
You have made a point! Your point was that you aren’t worried about quantum computing?
I agreed! Neither am I!
I am, however, worried about advancements in hardware that may be able to perform the same operations that everyone equates to the quantum compute capability
You referred back to the quantum compute article you posted… I questioned why as it does not pertain to my comments about parallel programming languages and advancements in low level hardware optimization
Understand that bitcoin core is written in a programming language… this programming language allows for very fast math at a low level (ie, hash math) the difficulty adjustment/ hr is the product of multiple nodes running math in parallel until one discovers the correct block and earns a mining reward
That’s my opinion but I’m asking questions to understand if I should change my opinion.
Half this message doesn’t make sense to me because I’m not a programmer. Can you explain it in a simpler way?
Yes, I will do my best as I also don’t consider myself a programmer. Some of this you probably already know but to build on logic.
As you know, bitcoin relies on mining validation to discover blocks. This is done using hardware that does “hash math”. Once upon a time, we used CPUs but now we use ASICS.
ASICs are much much faster than anything else at completing this math because they were optimized to do ONLY that.
But ASICS are just chips- the result of low level builds. Low level means that the programming language gives the operator direct control over the systems hardware.
Bitcoin software uses C++ programming language.
C++ software uses things like pointers etc (this allowed us to be able to basically give our Bitcoin address’ to live at and other weird things but it’s dependent on hardware/software sync).
the miner itself (aside from the ASIC chip which runs the hash math) requires instructions to operate. miners use ARM and I’ve recently seen arguments for x86… but these are proprietary meaning there’s rules to using these”instructions” (see tarriffs, fees, or vendor lock ins)
Whereas, RISC-V and even other even newer (and potentially more lightweight) ISAs (instruction sets) offer competition as they are open source models and open source iterates v quickly.
All of this is to say ASICS could be better… they could become faster potentially and whoever has early access to that hardware that does optimize… would be the fastest in the world at validating blocks and potentially other operational forms of compute.
No quantum computer required.
So you’re worried that a new mining hardware will be created that will be so good at mining that the other miners won’t be able to compete. And you’re worried that this hardware will only be in the hands of bad actors that will control the entire network. And you’re worried that no one else will be able to get their hands on this hardware to compete with them for the rest of time?
I’m worried that there is exactly one group of people working on this and their motivations are at odds with the success of Bitcoin, yes
I understand now. I’m not really concerned because I think that eventually it will become the new standard. The same way GPUs and ASICs became the new standard.
I agree, which circles bc to my point about.... as long as it is not concentrated in the hands of the few. Do you see what I mean now
I can’t think of any technology that stayed concentrated in the hands of a few indefinitely.
How would you know? You would never be given access to information like that if it existed
I guess I wouldn’t but if that technology was being used, people would notice. And if the technology is never used, then who cares?
We would all know that technology exists once they start mining. Then the miners would rally to try and catch up.
Sure. Or people running homebrew systems would tell you. But I digress… still a great conversation for nostr. Thanks 🙏
My guy… I literally have the Planck constant tattood on my arm
