Topic: . - page 7. (Read 24771 times)

yeah lol,

50-50 means simply that there is no consensus, i think many here are not understanding how consensus works exactly

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS IF A CERTAIN THRESHOLD IS NOT REACHED, period, that threshold appear to be 75% at least or even 90%

this means that if none of the two chains has reached that %, we simply stays with 1mb limit

In your hypothetical scenario you've already quoted how that works.

You're wasting your time here. Half of the thread is on ignore due to their idiocy and fallacies. The 'forkers' don't even really have many coins, i.e. they're not really invested in the ecosystem.

That's possible; or an attempt to destroy the currency. You'd be better off discussing this in the speculation section.

While I stand by my claim that price doubling due to block reward halfing and the resulting increased scarcity is not a matter of opinion. I will speculate that this forking nonsense is a desperate attempt to tank the price of BTC before the halfing hits and the globe planet goes buck-wild on Bitcoin due to the price surge. The result being panic in our elite fiat masters whose agenda seems to be the new dark ages.

He could learn 75% as well. That would be a nice start.

Lauda thinks there would be 2 chains at 50% lol

learn "orphan" lauda

I do not worry. You haven't answered my question.

You worry too much. Core supporters have been begging for large block proponents to stick with consensus. Surely, when that has changed those same people will stick with the new consensus. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

So *very uniformed me* sees this whole 'fork' and 'split of bitcoin' as the press FUD yells such on the 'demise of btc' well my view of if such happens in the following manner

IF

Bitcoin Classic gets over 75% of miners to go along with such THEN they move for the 2mb hard fork and 'bitcoin core devs' go along with such (open source protocol)
and all the FUD/Drama was just the equiv of a 'teenage spat' with the high school girlfriend (all hormones)

IF

Bitcoin Classic does not get what it needs for the hard fork..then the wringing of hands and such FUD shall continue into the next inclination or flavor that a proven minority at
that point will try to be moved in the future to usurp bitcoin core devs....much to the press's delight...never ending 'drama'

is that pretty much the scenario over say the next few months? Other aspects of some positive or dire note that I'm completely missing?

Jump on me on the above...I don't mind....have no frigging idea wth this is so damn hard for devs on either side of the fence to simply hash something together w/o all
the kindergarden antics.....

but man.... to this 'no clue individual' sure looks like mostly 'tantrum' in both camps and unless a clear victor 2016...I can see this parade 'repeat' again

Lauda is doomsday whispering again.. he doesnt accept bitcoin physics. that words like orphans exist.
and that if consensus is not reached orphans will rejoin the chain to current rules because lack of consensus obviously means not having enough nodes or hash to push forward. because no consensus means there is obviously hash power to fight against pushing forward.. meaning those trying to push forward will eventually get orphaned , even if it doesnt happen for multiple confirmations, it will happen. so those pushing forward would need to back peddle down to smaller blocks* to ensure they get to spend their winnings or be left hashing blocks that eventually become unspendable.
remember that even implementations with a 2000000 rule can still accept blocks that are just 250bytes to 0.999mb, its not a rule to only accept blocks over 1mb.
* still having the 2000000 setting as a buffer, but only making blocks under 1mb

if consensus is reached then the future rules take over as they obviously have the nodes and hash power to overtake permenently and the old rule nodes cant catch up obviously because they dont have enough nodes or hash power to keep ahead... wasting hash power on blocks that will never get accepted as they are left behind and so they have to upgrade or be left behind.

the worse that can happen is even if consensus is set to .. if the old rule crew dont start persuading themselves at even that things might change.. and get ready for it before true consensus is reached.. then by the time real consensus is reached at the higher levels and they still havnt took precautions to protect themselves by upgrading.. then THEY will be the cause of being left behind, unable to sync.

smarter people than lauda put words like 'orphans' 'hashpower' 'stales' 'consensus' into scenarios.. lauda and his motly crew just put 'blockstream for the win, anything else is a nuclear bomb' into a lame scenario that lacks logic.

same thing can be said for segwit.. if consensus is reached and old fullnodes havnt upgraded. they are reduced to compatible nodes. they become 'compatible nodes' receiving pay2anyone transactions that are meaningless to them, and are blindly relaying it on.
and even sipa has said its peoples own fault for not upgrading if things move forward due to consensus.

the funny part is that lauda wants people to upgrade to have segwit ready BEFORE miner consensus.. but doesnt follow the same logic for other non blockstream features.

Meh, I dont think that is how supply/demand actually works.  We are not making them more scarce - we are just reducing the rate by which we are increasing supply. There will be more bitcoins at the end of each day after the halving - not less.

And scarcity itself is not a generator of increased demand. Just because something is scarce, it does not follow that there will be a surge in demand. There needs to be an inherent demand for it. And that demand needs to increase of itself.

Go back to Nov2012, the last halving and notice that there was no major bump in price, and arguably the drop from 50 to 25 was a far bigger 'scarcity' jump than this one. Indeed, the mid 2013 rally was more to do with bank bail-ins and mt-gox front running than any added scarcity.

btw - the oil analogy is wrong. Oil is consumed - after you buy it, you burn it and it is gone. You need to pull more out of the ground. Its different with bitcoin. They are not consumed, merely traded.

This is not FUD. Consider a 50-50 split. Which one would you call Bitcoin? If you fail to comprehend the viewpoint, well that's not really my problem.

Why the FUD Lauda?

Is this something you really believe?

Technically there is no 'Core' or 'Classic' Bitcoin in that case. The original implementation has fragmented and is no more. I'd say that what you're left is are two altcoins.

What are you basing this on? There's a decent chance that nothing will happen to the price.

Go ahead, you will buy a bunch of worthless coins that nobody is ever going to touch apart from a small niche market (e.g. most of current altcoins).

Shut down half the oil wells thereby reducing supply by half. What happens to the price of a barrel of oil in the light of increased scarcity? How do market speculators react as a result and how do their actions affect the price?

This isn't a matter of my opinion or what I think.

Why do you think that?

ps Don't knock beer goggles. They have helped Nerds find love for generations.....

... from just the nodes its connected to. It does not have to broadcast blocks/tx's to every node in existence.



The 'distribution' he was referring to was the fact that I only need to send to my connected nodes, and they send to their pool and so forth.

Maybe the Core bitcoin will crash to the $1. But not the Classic bitcoin if it is supported by majority of miners and service providers.

Bitcoin halfing is coming up in the very near future and will result in a doubling of the BTC exchange rate. With the sudden jump speculators will pile on and we'll see $1100 no problem.

You should take those beer goggles off, they're distorting your vision!

You are hypocritical in that you charged me with ad-hom when you yourself personalise your arguments at one or two people in Classic.

Whether its your entire argument,  a large portion or merely a constituent part  is of little importance.  

Its nothing to do with who the lead maintainer is, or what a HF is or is not.

You need to deal with the hurt you feel and accept that you will not see your $1100 bitcoins for the foreseeable future. Its not Gavins fault. Or jtoomim.