Topic: 2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen. - page 3. (Read 3375 times)

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.

virtualx

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 508

LOTEO

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

Democratically yes, but you want to have consesus and stability in the bitcoin network for it to function. If 49% of the people would not use the same version, this is a very high amount of users. To be precise, it means about half of the bitcoin users would be affected. If only 10% uses an old version, it's their lost case. That's why 90% would be better.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

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

Well, if you just left it at 51%, the network is still unstable and can still go either side. With 90%, the probability of success is increased.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

If I wanted what the "rest of the world" wanted I would just put fiat in a bank. By your definition, we are already on the "losing side" because we use Bitcoin over fiat.

Bitcoin adoption is growing. I don't get how's that being on the losing side.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I use Bitcoin for certain reasons, and if Bitcoin forks into something I don't agree with, I will continue to use OldBitcoin, even if it's not accepted at Starbucks like NewBitcoin.

Very idealistic, but we need consensus for a reason.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

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

The 51% is what you theoretical need to make a double spend(there are models where you need less). People are just to fixed on that number.

But I also don't understand, what "90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork" is supposed to mean.
As far as I understand the network, it can't be that all the full nodes announce to each other, that they are ready(since a full node doesn't see all the other full nodes). Is it about blocks being mined, with the new version?

Edit:
I see, dserrano5 answered my question.

dserrano5

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1029

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

That enforcement is made in code. The changes will be there but they won't be active until 90% of the last N blocks supports them.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Cruxer on June 01, 2015, 02:48:43 AM

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

TKeenan

hero member

Activity: 874

Merit: 1000

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

Remember Coke/New Coke? That didn't work out well either.

Bitcoin/New Bitcoin - is going to be a problem. This time, the death of Bitcoin is probably real.

Cruxer

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Bitcoin FTW!

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

Bitware

hero member

Activity: 926

Merit: 1001

weaving spiders come not here

Quote from: R2D221 on June 01, 2015, 01:53:55 AM

Quote from: Bitware on June 01, 2015, 01:50:37 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on June 01, 2015, 01:45:04 AM

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

Because you're on the losing side. You will only have a blockchain for you and your friends, and it will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is actually using.

What if my friends and I are most bitcoin users?

Are we users the ones who apply value to any crypto coin, regardless of who mines it and the chain version they mine it on?

Is it the Bitcoin users trust and transaction fees that Bitcoin valuation and the miners revenue relies on?

It sounds like you are ASSuming that miners version requires users to upgrade to the version compatible with what they miners use. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, and I think it quite dangerous and naive for you to be so reliant on that ASSumption.

melody82

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 257

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.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bitware on June 01, 2015, 01:50:37 AM

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.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: R2D221 on June 01, 2015, 01:45:04 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on June 01, 2015, 01:45:04 AM

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

Because you're on the losing side. You will only have a blockchain for you and your friends, and it will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is actually using.

Bitware

hero member

Activity: 926

Merit: 1001

weaving spiders come not here

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500