I'm realllllyyyyy tempted to break this article down... Haven't been following "Hash Wars" much because BTC is already obsolete and everyone is too scared to admit it because our infrastructure is mostly designed around BTC.
That being said, whoever wrote this article CLEARLY does not understand basic logic rules or fallacies whatsoever. All three articles are riddled with "jumping to conclusions" and confusion of causality and correlation.
If reddit would actually care to see me rip this person's writing style apart I mean I have the day off so
Edit - it occurred to me that the issue might be as simple as a language barrier so I went back though and I'm pretty sure it isnt
I think he's trying to use the idea of a "smoking gun" but he's just calling it a gun. Not only that, humanity hasn't come up with a proper smoking gun that explains everything, that's why there are so many different belief systems.
Also, if I'm understanding the writer, their "logic" doesn't parse in the bigger picture either. Sure hash rate is a cornerstone aspect of mining in general, but I fail to see how pointing that out is a smoking gun pointed at... Anything, really
Edit - a letter
No agenda? Read it again. The man is clearly advocating that all such disputes should be handled by hashpower alone and that you should ignore any other opinions about this.
The author represents one of the largest mining pools.
For a coin that has no governance system that can trump hash power, there is a lot of truth there. The ability to destroy something is the ultimate ability to control something.
For Dash, with an effective governance system and an agile dev team, the article does not apply so much.
Dash runs on X11, not SHA256 like BCH, so not without an attacker having to buy more mining equipment than there is currently available. At once. Without anyone else buying/sending the price of the machines to high heaven.
I think several things are missed in this analysis. I think attacker would not mine empty blocks unnecessarily.
If I was CSW, my goal would be to make ABC miners give up voluntarily on DSV-txes because their blocks with DSV-txes are being orphaned with high probability.
CSW can achieve this as follows: if any ABC miner releases a block with DSV-txes, CSW would release two (pre-mined) blocks in succession containing a double spend tx for at least one of the DSV-txes included by ABC miner. Since CSW chain is longer, ABC block with DSV-tx becomes orphaned.
Above double-spend can be achieved as follows: CSW would release a DSV-tx to all miners, but work on an unreleased double-spend tx. CSW may choose to mine mostly empty blocks here for latency advantage.
If 90% of blocks with DSV-txes are being orphaned over a period of time, ABC miners would give up on DSV because they are losing their money. Note that, ABC miners wouldn't know which DSV-txes are potentially poisoned, so their only choice is to treat every DSV-tx as potentially double spent.
I think this would be a long game and there won't be any chain split.
CSW doesn't actually care about the protocol changes, though, or else he would have done a no-change implementation and easily won (as all implementations could just roll back to a previous version.) What he wanted was to become the dominant implementation, so he released an alternate-change implementation that forced everyone to pick ABC or SV.
You may be right, but we don’t know for sure. We need to focus on the outcome, not the rhetoric, so I give him benefit of doubt till I see how this will play out.
If he just go with no-change implementation, miners wouldn’t need to change their BTC vs BCH mining strategy. He must make his position as contentious as possible to make miners change their strategy — which seems to be his goal all along.
The outcome seems set to me. Bitmain defends against potential 51% attacks due to long term incentives. ABC already has the infrastructure of all major businesses and exchanges, so it's pretty much won in the free market. SV will either exist as a competing bitcoin chain, or their hashrate will be used on a 51% attack attempt and there will be no SV chain.
I'm not sure what you mean "change their mining strategy." You may be giving him too much benefit of the doubt :p I was neutral up until about a week ago, now I think his actions are not in line with the bitcoin project's goal of being sound, global money, though I don't know what his incentives are.
So, basically, they'll support whoever wins, even if it's a dictator.
Their stance is not clear though, since you can't know who's "willing to invest more hashrate and capital" while the war is still ongoing and reorgs are happening. Should we interpret that they'll just not mine BCH until the dust settles?
Sadly, this reads like some war strategies from Europe's world wars.
A virtual hash war sounds nice and fun, but what happens if people get hurt in the real world because of the amount of money and ideologies that are involved in this? Craig's twitter doesn't sound like a nice tea party anymore.
He threatens more than one community(BTC, BCH other PoW coins) with a combined market cap of > 100 billion?
I have only skimmed this article just now but my initial impression is that this is a good analysis of the situation with lots of figures, estimates and calculations to predict what might happen. I'll read it in more detail later.
A small miner cannot win this war alone and if they vote for the losing side they could risk losing a lot of money. I can imagine that many miners just want this war to end as soon as possible to remove the risk that they are mining worthless tokens. If you don't care too much who wins then the best way to end the war quickly is to join the side with the greater hash rate as BTC.top indicates.
Link in OP is just part 3 of Jiang Zhuoer's (CEO of [BTC.TOP](https://BTC.TOP)) full "Hash War" doc.
Part 1 [here](https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-1-why-we-need-hash-vote-e86ec209647a)
Part 2 [here](https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-ii-stability-theory-vs-evolution-theory-1f9015903d79)