pull down to refresh
One doesn't just "launch a new coin." Not a new proof-of-work coin, at least.
Bitcoin survived launch because the people who would later want it gone neither knew nor cared about it. By the time it was a nuisance, it was too big to cheaply grief. That window closed long, long ago.
A new SHA-256 coin, launched today, with any price worth attacking, gets griefed into irrelevance by SHA-256 hardware that already exists. A new GPU coin gets the same treatment from the rental market. "Go start your own coin" is not a general method for molding a better Bitcoin.
BIP-110 is not a counterexample. It is a one-off, the same way BCH was a one-off. It does not become the next Bitcoin, but it persists.
$128k/day (at today's $285/BTC2B) is enough to keep the operable Sia boxes on. $12/day is not. SHA-256 majority hashrate cannot take that revenue away without buying a different machine. Amassing enough of those machines to 51% it already takes real capital, even with most of Bitcoin wanting this chain dead.
And yes: if someone does it anyway, the people on this chain will orphan the attack. Software patch, checkpoint, whatever is required to get through the window where the hardware class is still thin. That is ugly. It is also how a minority fork that has already changed PoW refuses to die. Call it not-Bitcoin if you want. That does not make the chain go away.
BIP-110 will still be here. But it will not be the model. There is no model.
There is no model.
I like this approach. And we will get an entirely new model in about a month and a half when Sztorc launches his coin. I will be curious to see how his much more planned and thought out fork goes.
I suspect it will be another somewhat forgettable acronym, though. Because as you lay out, one does not simply walk into Mordor.
So, the question will be: is starting a new coin a blunder on Storc's part, or the next best move for his stated goal of drive chain adoption?
Watching the bcashjr struggles with launching has been very sobering. They have made a right mess of it. Probably others could have done better, but I wonder by how much?
I don't think it was solely an issue of support. It played out to me like something that ideological people who had very naive expectations about how things would play out. But I'm not sure that any future "good" fork would do that much better.
It has gotten easier to launch your own coin. The question is then how does one do:
It's not easy and it's been tried countless times. Best to stick with Bitcoin and let the market follow the forked winners.