@yosriz Thanks so much for this post. We are facing the same problems and its great to see someone else’s approach.
parity_nextNonce is working well for now. Keep up these posts, they are terrific!
@yosriz Make sure you share your parity settings when you finally get it set up. We have one on a huge server running with archive mode and traces, but the initial sync takes ages. Might be worth someone hosting a torrent of the initial DB to speed up nodes like this. Here is our parity dockerfile:
Great article. Based on the public statements of miners, I think we should start to make some predictions on block generation times, and fee increases on the UASF fork if Bitmain+others drop out? (ex. https://blog.bitaccess.co/after-the-fork/)
Thanks Eric. To be clear, I am not advocating a contentious hard-fork. I am unclear this approaches impact on the mining landscape as it is today.
Please correct me if I am wrong here:
For BIP148 to avoid a chain split, we are expecting Bitmain to move its hashpower, and sell chips to miners with…
Great article Eric. Fundamentally, Bitcoin is a PoW chain. Unless someone is willing to invest ~$15M in design and ~$25M on masks to build a viable competitor to Bitmain, I don’t see how BIP148 can sustain hashpower majority/security long term.
This is my largest concern with BIP148. Can you alleviate this concern?
Not really, the change addresses from almost all wallets are easily added as a heuristic to the clusterization. So, even if a mode advanced wallet was used, the analysis would remain the same. Change addresses only add a slight layer of obfuscation if any.
Coinjoin does add a good level of obfuscation, but it is trivial to detect.