SpectrGen // XBT @SpectrGen

@StackItDeep @anonymo02031848 It’s possible to gather proof. I’m going to try to find the answer to the question this weekend.

Looking much better

@StackItDeep @anonymo02031848 Sure. I would just like to see proof before turning the screws any harder

@StackItDeep @anonymo02031848 The key word is “if.” Unless we have identifiable evidence that the DATUM endpoints are under common control, we should treat them as independent. That doesn’t mean ignoring the risk. We should always stay alert for evidence of hidden or renewed centralization threats.

@2BitcoinBoy @ZilliqaDuke @LukeDashjr @cguida6 Wrong. A pool sufficiently stratified across DATUM gateways could dominate with 90% hashrate and still not have control over the network. Study DATUM.

@Thaddeusbtc

XBT is Bitcoin

Rory D Fpic @Rory_D_Fpic

2 days ago

XBT is Bitcoin

6 5 52 2K 1

@Du_Bi_Bo According to the website, AlphaMine is only providing a single public DATUM gateway, and as you can see from the chart, each subarc is somewhat evenly distributed in terms of hashrate. It’s definitely not perfect, but it’s significant progress.

@anonymo02031848 Each subarc in AlphaMine’s slice of the pie is a different DATUM gateway share, with SV1 at the lowest layer. The decentralization of block template construction is seemingly improving.

The Coinbase maturity extension affects Stratum and DATUM, correct. The way ahead is still being deliberated. You should read the release notes though. It explains a lot. github.com/bitcoinknots/b… Personally, I think the 45 day CBM was so effective that it should be made permanent.

@e_glosson41274 Yes, the majority of AlphaMine's DATUM pool blocks so far were found by the "public DATUM gateway" the pool is hosting, which subverts the purpose of using DATUM gateway. It's difficult to tell if the hashrate trend is dispersing into more DATUM gateways or consolidating

👀

@ColorCombos I don’t want to put the cart before the horse but it’s looking promising

Every day closer to 51% DATUM. Every day closer to paradise. Keep it going, boys. All the way to 100%. 🫡 45-day Coinbase maturity is already making pools and miners think further ahead. Skin in the game changes incentives.

@MisterYO504 The answer given is in the release notes. On one hand I wish it was longer and/or rolling for a year, but on the other hand the conservative option that still has teeth is an obvious choice until we know the relative impact. github.com/bitcoinknots/b…

The long coinbase maturity soft fork is much cleverer than it looks at first glance. It doesn’t try to identify or ban mercenary BLAKE2b hash. Instead, it attacks the economic machinery that allows immature SV1 pools to rapidly aggregate opportunistic hash and turn it into liquid payouts. At block 973,440, newly mined coinbases become subject to a 6,480-block maturity until block 979,920. But because the enforcement window itself is exactly 6,480 blocks long, none of those rewards actually mature while the rule is active. They all hit the same cliff: effectively, every new mining reward is frozen until 979,920, when consensus returns to the normal 100-block maturity. That is brutal for an immature SV1 pool. If its business model relies on spending coinbases around the normal 100-block maturity to pay transient hashers, that flow simply stops working. Spend one of those covered coinbases too early and upgraded nodes reject it; mine a block containing that spend and those nodes reject the entire block. The alternative is for the pool to keep paying miners out of its own already-mature reserves while 45 days of newly earned block rewards accumulate frozen behind it. For a thinly capitalized pool, that can be existential. And the more opportunistic hash it attracts, the larger the liquidity hole becomes. The mechanism turns the very thing that makes SV1 dangerous (being able to rapidly aggregate huge amounts of mercenary hash) into a massive capital requirement. DATUM with direct generated payouts, such as TIDES, fits the model much more naturally. The miners' shares are placed directly into the coinbase when the block is created. Those individual outputs still have to mature, but there is no centralized pool treasury that first receives the subsidy and then needs to spend it later to distribute rewards. The maturity burden follows the actual miners rather than forcing a pool to finance an army of transient hashers. Another clever part: there is no miner or node signaling threshold. This is a height-based flag-day soft fork. Nodes running the new version begin enforcing it automatically at 973,440 regardless of how many other nodes signal support. Nodes that refuse to upgrade are not given veto power over activation. As long as miners follow the stricter rule, they can continue following the same chain. But if an old-rule SV1 pool or miner tries to spend one of these coinbases after only ~100 blocks and mines that spend, the enforcing network rejects the block outright. Any non-upgraded nodes that accept and build on it have followed that miner onto an incompatible fork. That is another benefit of the design: unaligned miners do not get to drag enforcing nodes back to the old rules. If they insist on monetizing rewards before the new maturity permits it, they effectively fork themselves, and any old nodes willing to follow them, off the enforcing network. That's the elegance of it: the network doesn't need to know which ASICs are “mercenary.” It changes the incentives underneath them. Opportunistic hash can still point at XBT, but the thinly capitalized SV1 pools that make that hash liquid, convenient and scalable suddenly need enough reserves to finance weeks of payouts, or make their miners wait.

@alleserojje What’s the delusion?

We node runners did not fire the miners to change the logo or swap one mining algorithm for another. We fired them to preserve Bitcoin as sovereign money. Money that no state, corporation, miner, pool operator, or other powerful interest gets to rule through capital or coercion. Bitcoin’s rules are chosen by the people willing to run them, and we are free to change those rules when the incentives begin working against Bitcoin’s monetary purpose. And we just proved it again. When opportunistic SV1 hashrate concentrated behind one pool, we extended coinbase maturity rather than accept hashrate dominance as sovereignty. Hashrate may leave. Capital may leave. Miners may leave. But the money stays. So bring the hashrate. Bring the capital. Bring whatever economic leverage you think gives you control on our network. It does not. If your behavior threatens the purpose of the money, the rules will change beneath you. Your hashrate is temporary. The money is not.

XBT | Hardfork cguida | ⚡🪢 @cguida6

5 days ago

@CTRLpool The sha256 miners forked themselves off, so yes, in that sense they quit >Bitcoin miners didn't show up for BIP-110, they swatted it away like it was a gnat. 5 mining pools decided in a backroom deal to hardfork themselves off by ignoring consensus, yes. That's why we fired

1 7 68 4K 2

@zBTCowany I know what you mean. It's a difficult balance to keep it open for anyone to participate while not allowing that to drown out the signal or distort polling results. I wish I had a better solution other than measured and even-handed moderation.

@Badbitcoinorg While you’re correct that every decentralized network has pockets of centralization, the decision to accept or reject any rule change ultimately rests with each individual node runner.

@cutty9 @nomadshiba @_Knotzi A shitcoin pool operator. I don't know much about it. Why, something going on?