pull down to refresh
199 sats \ 6 replies \ @sandbeach123old 17 Oct 2022 \ on: BSV will be pursuing criminal charges against the entity/entities responsible 🤡 bitcoin
This is interesting however. IMHO this is just a soft fork, where this miner is enforcing a new "rule" (blocks must be empty). And by the hashing power the miner has, seems this is a successful fork. Minority miners will only mine orphans and therefore will get 0 reward.
What these guys of bsv do not get is that this is how the game works.
It's not a fork, the miner is not breaking any rules, otherwise the other 14 BSV nodes would instantly reject its blocks.
reply
The soft fork does not break existing rules, but adds a new one, so it restricts even more the consensus. It is the hard fork the one that breaks them.
https://youtu.be/U2yAcsj7P_E?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61KHzhg3JIJdK08JLSlcLId
In these clases they explain the subject very well, especially scenarios regarding the mining support of different types of forks.
reply
It's not a new rule, any other miner is free to build on a chain tip with non-empty blocks and the attacking miner is also building on non-empty blocks since he does not have 100% of the hash power.
The ruleset is not decided by the majority hash power holder. Not a soft fork.
reply
Yep, it's simply a 51% attack.
reply
Got it, my bad. Indeed it's an attack. I guess a fork would need many other conditions to be met.
reply
The core failure they have is simply network effect and use of a hash function that total internet usage is so large that people can punk them with it, cheaply.
It's so elementary game theory that it just shows you how serious BSV guys are about their project. IE, not even an iota of seriousness.
If Calvin will give me a hundred grand I'll build him a better hash function that won't be so easy to attack. Just Kidding!
reply