To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  There's a distinct line between being visionary and having godlike powers to predict the future, heh.  People tried to make the same point about GPU mining and the propagation of mining pools, but again, these things weren't eventualities that could be easily predicted in advance.



People might be suspicious and have concerns over who funds what, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing or unethical practice on the part of Blockstream yet that I've seen.  Such a claim would need to be substantiated.  Literally all of the misdeeds I've witnessed have been ordinary members of the community:

• DDoS attacks against people running Bitcoin nodes that conflict with their personal visions of the future
• Ad hominem attacks on members of the community that hold different views
• Running a modified client to spoof the client version and manipulate the figures
• Impersonating satoshi to discredit a fork proposal
• Dismissing fork proposals as an altcoin

if something needs a cpu. no matter what it is..
someone can make a chip thats only sole purpose is a single function. so that its more efficient.
and then make a mainboard of multiple chips to multiply that efficiency.

no matter what hash or method he could ever think off there will be many people finding ways to do it more efficiently and then find the loop hole
to increase their 'luck'

EG 1 node one signature... where 400 people are signing. each person has a 0.25% chance

loophole= run 200 nodes
600 signing.. but one person has 33% chance

i think DooMAD meant BITCOIN asics didnt exist in 2008.
but im sure satoshi knew whatever he chose could be abused done efficiently. so just chose the lessor of the 2 evils

PoS is just allowing the richer guy to sign. because they have above X stake. thus the whole rich vs poor paradigm would have played out far sooner than the asic one, which didnt really begin until 2013

That is why the mining system should be redesigned completely. Maybe some captcha system, requiring manual labor, or some capped mining system that lets 1 ip address get reward only once a week or something.

There can be a dozen of ways to prevent mining centralization, just do a brainstorm, and find out intelligent people comin up with good ideas.


Didnt you read what I posted above:

Double Hash instead of HMAC.
Key generation not quantum resistant.
SHA2 should be replaced with SHA3
The mining algo is a mess, that centralizes mining power
Nodes are not incentivized
Block size only 1 MB
TX fees should be 0 until the minting process is on (why have 2 taxes, have inflation until 21m coins are mined, and demurrage by TX fees after that)
Nodes should individually censor people who are doing evil things (botnet, ddos, spam, etc)


In short, BTC is a mess, and none of the Segwit code addresses anything that I have wrote above, because these are the biggest issues.

Bullshit, these are cryptographic facts, look them up. I read up on double hashing ,and many people suggested that its inferior to HMAC.

Same with ECDSA a very depreciated public key system.

The solution is out there, it's just that the expert devs, don't have time for 5 minutes of Google search on basic cryptography to read up on vulnerabilities, that an amateur like me can find.





I am not a programmer, but it is disturbing that there is no programmer on earth that can fix these?

Maybe because programmers need money, nobody will write tens of thousands of lines of code for free, for hobby.

Maybe if some donation fund would be setup for developers, then the BTC development would be more frictionless.

That ain't gonna happen.


Neither is that. Core will be ousted by design.

You mean they have overengineered a bit and lost some traction?

Skipped the marketing and some soft skills?

 

Ok that link was indeed irrelevant, but I am going out of my way here to prove my point.

I have found this:

https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~dodis/ps/h-of-h.pdf

This paper proves that HMAC is superior to SHA256d.

Also here is a discussion about this issue:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/7895/weaknesses-in-sha-256d




How do you know there arent some in some secret underground bunker? Secret projects are always 10-20 years ahead in technology than things that are available publicly.





Not it's not irrelevant, if we cant achieve consensus on small issues, then how can we reach consensus on big issues that might come in the future?



There were some collisions found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation

It might make bitcoin mining more unstable if more are found.



But will they upgrade if there will be a need to upgrade. How do you know if there is or is not a need to upgrade.

Why not let the nodes decide it, and if a node thinks they need a better software that fixed certain bugs, then it should be ok for them to use that fixed version.





Well upgraded miners. Yes it's a long stretched thought experiment, and I am not saying that it's practical to upgrade the network now.

But the problem is that when we will need to upgrade it, we will face this exact issue.

Asics will become worthless, and miners will lose either way. So the losses are not eliminated, they are just postponed into the future.

Maybe SHA2 will be broken in 10-15 years, and if miners by then had invested billions in ASICS, then that will be a big  fat loss.

Well, you're on fire today aren't you.


All you have to do is find a programmer to code up your killer cryptocoin design, and pay them. But, what's this, you won't put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

This conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense.

Facepalm. What you're referring to is mining support, not node support. Node support is around or above 50%: https://bitnodes.21.co/

Also known as the false dilemma fallacy.

Then why are you arguing your viewpoints in a subject in which you have very limited knowledge in? Are you trying to imply that you're smarter than the top cryptographers working or doing research on Bitcoin?

Node majority =/= economic majority =/= mining majority.

There isn't a valid reason to do so.

Nonsense.