Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.
Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).
Topic: 2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen. - page 2. (Read 3375 times)
If Mircea is such a "crackpot" why does he have so many more Bitcons than you?
They are not mutually exclusive.
One way or another, this is going to happen. There's always been a certain inevitability about this
That's exactly what Hillary supporters said in 2008, and still say, to justify her coronation. But we're not going to just sit back and enjoy it.
If Mircea is such a "crackpot" why does he have so many more Bitcons than you?
I look forward to seeing how Gavinistas and Bitcoin Foundation fanboys handle MPEX's 'GavinCoin Short' response.
If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
Fine. You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:
Gavin has already lost this tug of war.
His inability to accept a consensus he disagrees with has been exposed. His managerial incompetence and duplicity, in the form of spawning XT in spooky/smokey VC backroom deals with no warning on the normal channels, have been confirmed.
The Gavinista coup is DOA. They just don't know it yet.
No effective strategy or device exists to counter Mircea's 'GavinCoin Short' WMD:
Quote
http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.
It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.
Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.
As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.
It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.
Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.
It is by Lord Satoshi's sublime design Bitcoin grants all possible advantages to its defenders, and places all possible economic and technical burdens on attackers.
"Fake version stamps" are just one option available to Mircea and other anti-20mb counterrevolutionaries.
It's adorable how sweet, innocent CIYAM, etc. assume both sides will not try to rig the voting. But we're going to see Sun Tzu's warfare by deception, in spades.
Like Pinochet, Mircea has the expertise, motivation, and resources needed to "disappear" Gavinista insurgents until they give up and stop forking around.
I don't get all the fuss about it. At the end of the day, the consensus will be reached by Bitcoin miners and people running nodes, not by the devs. Isn't it better that the people reach consensus, and not the devs?
Correct; two is the wrong count. The blockchain will assume the morphology of a hydra. Most of the heads won't know whether to fight, fuck, or run a foot-race.
XT will be one head and so-called 'core' will be just one more. Ultimately none of the heads will be innately more valuable than the others and will have to stand on some combination of their merits and the resources that various parties are willing to invest in them.
If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
Fine. You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:
{insert Mircea-worshipping-propaganda here}
Post what you like, but just know that anyone with a brain will keep ignoring such drivel. No one in their right mind would trust that crackpot Mircea or any of his fawning, deluded fanboys.
If the fork doesn't happen in core, then it's only prudent to try it in XT. One way or another, this is going to happen. There's always been a certain inevitability about this because the network needs more users to survive in the long term as the block reward diminishes over time. But in its present form, the network can't support enough users to pay enough fees to incentivise miners to secure the network.
If, hypothetically, there was no block reward right now, based on the transaction volume we are getting now, how much fee would need to be paid on each transaction to give at least the current average level of fees plus the 25 BTC reward? Last time I bothered to do the math, we were averaging about 750 transactions per block. By my figures, each transaction would have to have a fee of about .034 BTC just to cover the 25 BTC reward, plus a bit extra for the current fees that are already being paid (so there's no loss of mining revenue). How many people are going to pay about $8 USD in fees for every single transaction? If people aren't willing to pay that much, there will be even fewer transactions and that cost will then rise further. But increase the number of transactions in the block, rather than limiting it, then you can spread that cost over a greater number of users, making it more affordable. Obviously we can squeeze in a few more than the 750 we're averaging at the moment, but we genuinely do need more users than the system will currently support to make this thing sustainable in future.
Look at this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-05-30-audio-lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion-1075510
There is an interview with Gavin on there that makes things a little more clear. He explains different things and goes over his position very clearly. It turns out he has very good reasons for wanting the 20mb block size, and it isn't just an ego trip. It is a really good listen.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-05-30-audio-lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion-1075510
There is an interview with Gavin on there that makes things a little more clear. He explains different things and goes over his position very clearly. It turns out he has very good reasons for wanting the 20mb block size, and it isn't just an ego trip. It is a really good listen.
You and the OP are fighting for sanity, thank you both for the effort.
If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.
Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".
This debate is moot.
Fine. You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:
Gavin has already lost this tug of war.
His inability to accept a consensus he disagrees with has been exposed. His managerial incompetence and duplicity, in the form of spawning XT in spooky/smokey VC backroom deals with no warning on the normal channels, have been confirmed.
The Gavinista coup is DOA. They just don't know it yet.
No effective strategy or device exists to counter Mircea's 'GavinCoin Short' WMD:
Quote
http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.
It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.
Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.
As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.
It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.
Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.
It is by Lord Satoshi's sublime design Bitcoin grants all possible advantages to its defenders, and places all possible economic and technical burdens on attackers.
"Fake version stamps" are just one option available to Mircea and other anti-20mb counterrevolutionaries.
It's adorable how sweet, innocent CIYAM, etc. assume both sides will not try to rig the voting. But we're going to see Sun Tzu's warfare by deception, in spades.
Like Pinochet, Mircea has the expertise, motivation, and resources needed to "disappear" Gavinista insurgents until they give up and stop forking around.
Where is the evidence to support that "several powerful miners" have said this or that?
I don't believe they are serious, though. Either you support the fork or you don't. Switching back and forth just seems childish to me.
I think the bahaviour of Gavin and his fanboys is childish. But never mind. This gonna sell off to double or even single digits, then you idiots can sort it all out...
Several powerful miners have announced to pretend to use XT and to switch back after the fork so, yes, baby ther will be two chains because people will not be blackmailed into 20MB blocks.
I don't believe they are serious, though. Either you support the fork or you don't. Switching back and forth just seems childish to me.
Several powerful miners have announced to pretend to use XT and to switch back after the fork so, yes, baby ther will be two chains because people will not be blackmailed into 20MB blocks.
You are right anyone who continues mining on the blockchain which isn't the main one are complete idiots
finally more and more clever and old bitcoiners are starting good threads...
This clears up a lot of confusion and misconception people are spreading around. I don't see it as an issue because either the fork goes along well and the new blockchain gets accepted or most likely a large portion of the community members refused to upgrade to the newer client version and the old blockchain remains. Perhaps the concern here is whether if 51-49 percent between the yes and no group or somewhere near that region that leaves the community generally undecided, would that actually cause the network to become unstable and prone to attack.
It's a big problem not as easy as that. If you are running a business, will you switch to XT or stay in core? Will Da Dice pay us in Core or in XT BTC? for example.
You're not paying attention. Please read the original post again.
It's a big problem not as easy as that. If you are running a business, will you switch to XT or stay in core? Will Da Dice pay us in Core or in XT BTC? for example.
WTF man? There will be only bitcoin.
This clears up a lot of confusion and misconception people are spreading around. I don't see it as an issue because either the fork goes along well and the new blockchain gets accepted or most likely a large portion of the community members refused to upgrade to the newer client version and the old blockchain remains. Perhaps the concern here is whether if 51-49 percent between the yes and no group or somewhere near that region that leaves the community generally undecided, would that actually cause the network to become unstable and prone to attack.
It's a big problem not as easy as that. If you are running a business, will you switch to XT or stay in core? Will Da Dice pay us in Core or in XT BTC? for example.
I always wonder, when I see this discussion:
Did somebody actually make an estimate, about how many users are against that idea? In reality most people will just upgrade to the new version of their client. Are there developers of popular clients, who don't want to implement the new block size?
For miners, it is going to be mostly the question if the mining pool upgrades. Are there mining pools saying that they don't want to upgrade?
Did somebody actually make an estimate, about how many users are against that idea? In reality most people will just upgrade to the new version of their client. Are there developers of popular clients, who don't want to implement the new block size?
For miners, it is going to be mostly the question if the mining pool upgrades. Are there mining pools saying that they don't want to upgrade?
This clears up a lot of confusion and misconception people are spreading around. I don't see it as an issue because either the fork goes along well and the new blockchain gets accepted or most likely a large portion of the community members refused to upgrade to the newer client version and the old blockchain remains. Perhaps the concern here is whether if 51-49 percent between the yes and no group or somewhere near that region that leaves the community generally undecided, would that actually cause the network to become unstable and prone to attack.
in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?
That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.
still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority
Afaik 51% just means danger zone activated, but it doesn't necessarily mean at soon as you hit 51% attacks are effective.
We're not talking about attacks here. Please read the topic before commenting.
Jump to: