Topic: [2017-08-02]Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins? (Read 12393 times)

I don't think that anyone here argues that Bitcoin protocol is permissionless and open, and no one can't dictate others what to do.

But the current situation is that in November there will be 2 blockchains, and developers/users/miners of both will call their chain "Bitcoin".

It will be very inconvenient for users, especially for newcomers, so it's in the best interest of both sides to find some consensus. And currently, crypto community hasn't established any unwritten consensus rules regarding blockchain names after split. To my knowledge, there wasn't any crypto civil war previously, because new developers were adopting new names for their forks.

To both of you I say categorically not.  Miners can't build a longest chain (or "most proof of work", or however you want to phrase it) without an adequate number of full nodes to help relay transactions and propagate the chain.  Miners can't make unilateral decisions (unless they enjoy mining an empty chain that no one is actually using).  Non-mining full nodes will always play a vital part in consensus as far as I'm concerned.  Also, there's no way to put the cart before the horse.  How do you establish an economic majority on a rival chain if you don't let it happen and allow the market to decide for itself?  And at the end of the day, it's a moot point anyway, because you have no choice but to let it happen, in that you have literally zero power to prevent anyone from forking if they choose to. 



I'm pretty sure I've made it about as clear and unambiguous as I can that my first choice wasn't 2x.  At this stage, I have no plans on following a minority chain, so I'll go with whatever.  SegWit and SegWit2x are both equally acceptable to me moving forwards.  But ideally I'd prefer something adaptive because I think a fixed cap is stupid and shortsighted, whatever the cap ends up being.  And yes, the right to choose is paramount.  That includes letting people voice and even implement ideas that you might not agree with.  But just because they implement it in their code, you are under no obligation to use it.



How many more times?  Core can and should do whatever they damn well please.  It doesn't matter what I think, it's up to them what they want to do.  Likewise, it doesn't matter what you think, it's up to all the other developers out there what they want to do.  No one should be telling developers what they can and can't do, just like developers shouldn't be telling any users what code they can or can't run.  Everyone is free to do what they want.  I'm not sure how many more ways I can phrase it.  No one dictates anything to anyone.  This is not a dictatorship.  Is there any way I can possibly make my stance any clearer than that?

It is about that.  The control doesn't change at all.  All that changes is who wrote the code that the majority of users are deciding to run.  No one had control at any point.

If Jeff Garzik's code was what people were running, he would not have taken control.  He just proposes code and people decide whether to adopt it.  If Core then develops code that people decide to adopt again, there would be absolutely no shift of power, because Core had the exact same power that they had before - to develop code and hope that people run it.

This is one of the problems in Bitcoin community, there is no good way to vote for proposals before they happen. Core tried to solve this when they introduced signalling, but miners only represent their selfish interests.



Longest chain  
I can just fork Bitcoin, drop difficulty and block time and solo mine the longest chain on my CPU.
Longest chain consensus establishes consensus within network with the same rules, it doesn't apply to chains with new rules.
If you wanted to cite Satoshi, you should have said "chain with the most PoW", but this means that miners decide what is Bitcoin at this current moment, and users need trading to establish economic majority.
The problem is, establishing economic majority will take some time, it will be messy because newbies will be losing money to replays, ticker confusion, potential network disruptions, etc. Online wallets will be deciding chain names for their users, which again makes newbies very vulnerable. In the end, we will have new economic consensus on what chain is Bitcoin, which might or might not be the better software. No one argues that this process is permissionless.

What would be great for Bitcoin community (regardless of their views on the future of Bitcoin) is if we had some etiquette rules regarding forks, and maybe some mechanisms to signal your economic intentions, like for example signalling with coins you hold. This could help us avoid months of "civil war" in cases of economic splits in Bitcoin community.

Lol, what about consensus of the users? Your argument means the miners talk, and us users can only listen


You're basically saying everything that favours the argument of the corporate hard fork coup mobs, and always have done. You'll say anything except that you're in favour of this 2x nonsense, despite reality proving it's not needed, and clearly serves the purpose of making it more difficult for regular Bitcoin users to have their say in choosing the rules to enforce (because the 2x blocksize wil be even harder for regular folks to download and store, which is clearly the idea). But we must protect the users' right to choose though, huh!

But you're just a concerned man of principles, protecting the greater good! Right? Strange how you're subtly representing a direction that always suggests that Core should listen to your direction for Bitcoin, or that the latest hard fork "scaling" idea is a good idea? But it's all about technical ideas, nothing about changing who's in control, which doesn't exist! lol

I don't remember making the argument that consensus can enforce more than one set of rules.  That would be silly.  My argument has always been that anyone can propose a rule and then consensus decides if that rule is valid or not.  Unless I'm mistaken, your argument is that only Core can propose rule changes because if any other client does it, it's suddenly an act of theft.  Or did you care to clarify that?



Until BIP91 happened, yes, Core had a bit of a monopoly going on.  But now that the /btc1 client has set a precedent, it's clear than any developer can put out software with rules written into it and there's a possibility those rules could take effect, providing there is consensus.



Here we get to the crux of the matter.  Who decides what constitutes "strong community support"?  Are we making the argument that no one should be allowed to even propose a rule change unless it seems like people might agree?  How do we determine that for certain?  If only we had some kind of way to measure who supports what...

Oh wait... we do - it's called the consensus mechanism.

It's built into Bitcoin.  So we don't need to worry about trying to guess who supports what, because you can just run the software enforcing the rules you want and it'll all be taken care of.  If there is strong support for a rule change, it'll happen.  If there isn't strong support for a rule change, it won't happen.  Whichever ruleset builds the longest chain gets to be called Bitcoin.  If there is a split and your preferred ruleset doesn't build the longest chain, you are free to continue using it, but you have to accept that consensus doesn't agree with you, so you'll be using a minority chain, otherwise known as an altcoin.  However, you can compromise and continue using (or developing for) Bitcoin if you want as well.  The choice is yours.  Everyone's free to do what they want.

It's all about succession of the "Bitcoin" name after the chain split. Usually, people who introduce modified software, that is incompatible with current versions, are taking new name for their project.
There are no rules and regulations regarding names for cryptocurrency projects, and there shouldn't be, but if you don't have strong community support behind you, you shouldn't try to take over project's name, it would be a dick move.

BCH split has already caused problems for some newibes, they got tricked into installing malware, sent their coins to wrong chains, got confused about the price, etc.
If 2x fork will happen, it will be much worse, because it will come without replay protection, and different services (most importantly, exchanges) might have different stances about names for both chains.

And I feel like crypto community is pretty bad at consensus for names, Bitcoin Cash just took BCC ticker, even though it already belong to Bitconnect.
Perhaps we should agree to name coins by their clients to avoid fighting for names, i.e. current Bitcoin would be Bitcoin Core, Grazik's SegWit2x would be BTC1.

Yep.  I agree with that.
For the Bitcoin Core client, I agree.
So by introducing modified Bitcoin software and hoping that people adopt it, are people "taking over" or "attacking" Bitcoin?  Or are they attempting to gain consensus for what they believe is right?
Currently, it's no one.  If anyone wanted to alter a rule, they would need consensus.  Core is not above anyone else in that regard.

It's really simple.


If Bitcoin Core can be changed by anyone, then anyone could make changes. They can't.


Bitcoin Core is the team with the keys to the source code. Now. There needs to be some way of deciding what code is in the software, otherwise, it would literally be a free for all, as you and DooMAD seem to be vaguely hinting at all the time.


It works like this:

• 1 blockchain has 1 set of rules
• Any number of separately made versions of Bitcoin software can run on the network, so long as they use that 1 set of rules

If someone wants to change the 1 set of rules, they can do this:

• Introduce modified Bitcoin software with a modified set of rules
• Encourage/hope that more than 50% of miners adopt it. And that much more than 50% of regular users adopt it

You guys seem to want to paint this confusing picture where more than 1 set of rules works at once. That's not possible. Because, well, rules. Duh.

Who's making the rules at the moment? Who puts out the software with those rules written into it? It's Core, isn't it?

For Bitcoin Core.  Bitcoin Core do not control the source code for Bitcoin itself.  You still haven't grasped that.
The point that you made to justify your opinion that SegWitx2 is bad was:
That was your argument.  That SegWitx2 is bad because it is trying to "take control of Bitcoin's source code and development".

DooMAD responded that your argument was based on a "flawed premise".  The flawed premise being that you think developing something which is not Bitcoin Core is an attempt to take over Bitcoin Core.

SegWitx2 would only be taking over Bitcoin Core if they literally went and murdered people from Bitcoin Core and edited the source code.  And even if they did that, they would NOT be "taking over Bitcoin", they would be "taking over Bitcoin Core".

Your argument is so detached from reality that it's painful, and in response to a rebuttal you have to claim that we are saying nothing.  In reality, we are telling you how consensus works, something which you should have learned about years ago but apparently didn't.

So yeah, at this point in time, Core controls the source code, we've established that.

And the control can be shifted to a different team, if Bitcoin users want it. Everyone's happy with that.



Why are you answering a different point to the actual point I'm making?


I say: "2x, bad idea IMO"

You say: "So, you're say it's impossible! You're saying people aren't allowed to choose 2x, let them choose, you big bully!"

I say: "uh, i just, uh, said it was a bad idea, and gave reasons"

You say: "There you go again! Saying everyone has to do it your way!!!"


I say: "Riiiiiiiiiiight"

Core controls the source code for the reference client, which is conveniently titled "Bitcoin Core" so that you can get your head around what it is.  Anyone could contribute to Bitcoin Core's code as well.

If a second implementation of a full node were to become the reference client, or in fact if there were many different clients which all had a moderately high level of popularity, that would be a natural and acceptable part of consensus.

What you don't seem to understand is that Core's power would be the same if a different client were the reference client.  Core could still develop their own client and suggest that people use it.  However, it is always the users' choice to decide which is the best and most secure client.

The same applies to Core's proposals such as SegWit - Core cannot force a consensus, because there is only consensus if people actually agree.

The same applies to chain splits - Core cannot force people to use the earlier BTC chain.  This is because they do not have control over people's decisions.

The consensus model has never meant "Core says something, because Core are the masters of the world we must obey, all hail Bitcoin Core forever, any other dev teams are evil entities trying to take over Bitcoin".

You can slip in a lot of fancy words and discuss "semantics" all you like, but Bitcoin's consensus model isn't going to change for you.

People like me?  If you still think I'm trying to turn people against Core, you're wrong.  I support Core's right to exist and do what they want to do equally as much as I support other developers' right to do the same.  You're the one with the penchant for trying to turn people against things.  I say live and let live, providing you let others do the same (which you seem either unwilling or unable to do).  I'll happily defend core when people make arguments as spurious as yours against them.  I wonder if I'll ever see the day where you could bring yourself to defend another developer from unfair attack?

Nothing changes as a result of what I've said, but as a result of what undisputedly happened.  A client was released by another developer and that client was primarily responsible for a change in consensus.  Core wasn't "in control" of that, so it should be clear now that control is neither required nor in any way desirable.  SegWit is about to be activated because someone who wasn't core intervened and supplied the code that broke the deadlock.  Bitcoin doesn't want or need anyone in control.  It's not points scoring, it's just something you need to accept.

And Jeff Garzik isn't going to control Bitcoin, because he can't.  No one can.  So why would I claim how much more wonderful that would be when it simply can't happen?  It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.  Whoever supplies the code at any given time, the network keeps churning out blocks approximately every 10 minutes subject to variance.  It's not control that makes that happen, or continue to happen in future.  It's consensus.  Consensus doesn't need everyone to agree, it doesn't need any single development team to approve and it categorically does not need anyone in control for those blocks to continue being produced.

I can't think of any more polite ways to say it.  

Fuck your primitive notions of control.  This is beyond such archaic ideals.  Your authoritarian views are wholly impotent here.  Protest all you like, but impotence is all you'll demonstrate.  You have control over your private keys and the software you choose to run.  Make of them as you will.  Beyond that, suck it, Napoleon.

Better question: why fork Bitcoin at all? Unless you can make a really solid case that the direction of the Core developers is dangerous to Bitcoin's value, then hard forks that change the development team will always just look like thinly disguised coup attempts, no matter how much well meaning hand-waving accompanies them.




*Sigh*

So you're just playing with semantics about what the word "team" means to score some playground points?


Nothing changes as a result of what you've said.

At this point in time, Core controls the source code. Unless people like you can start the job of turning everyone against Core (which would be a smart move if Core were being incompetent with their control, but there is no case for that now or previously). No-one's arguing that's not possible, simply that it's a bad idea right now (but you're such a terrible troll that your reply to that is "wrong! it is possible! you are wrong!", so not much point in me saying "noooo, I'm actually just saying it's a bad idea....")


Instead of arguing all these complicated hypotheticals so that you can stick your tongue out and say na-na-na-na-naaa-naaa, why not stay on-topic (like my post you responded to), and tell us all about how much more wonderful Bitcoin is going to be when Jeff Garzik controls it instead? You don't seem to have an opinion at all, considering how many words you have to use to say precisely nothing

This.  Now that things are finally moving forwards, rather than everyone arguing over speculations of "what might be", we can soon base our views on observable effects and adjust course as needed.  Not long now 'til SegWit.  At the time of writing, 350 blocks to go, approximately 2-and-a-half days time.



Because freedom?  He can support and contribute to any chain, or multiple chains if he so chooses.  His choice, not yours.




And the truth shall set you free!


Just because another development team adopted BIP91 first and deployed it to the network first, it doesn't mean Core can't then merge the code afterwards.  Everyone can still play happy families together.  No theft involved.  Just like if another development team were to release 2MB code and if consensus were to approve that, Core can also choose to merge that code and continue on as normal.  Again, no theft involved, no hostile takeover, no one taking control of anything.  Just two development teams sharing code and Bitcoin still works perfectly.  

Bitcoin functions perfectly well with multiple developers providing code.  Fact.

I'm pleased to see you're finally beginning to see the light.  Well done, there's hope for you yet.

If Jeff Garzik wants bigger blocks and he is risking another debatable hardfork, then why does he not support and contribute to bitcoincash directly? He could propose a malleability fix like segwit or improve and fix the bugs in flex trans and try to convince the bitcoin cash community to impelement that in place of segwit.

There is no need to bother bitcoin anymore. If you are not happy with the core development team, there is always bitcoincash.

Uh, Core merged BIP91, so it's Core code. Like you're so fond of saying, anyone can write something and submit it for Core to review (you're not so fond of pointing out the difference between Core accepting BIP91 and Core rejecting Segwit 2x, funny that)

Notice how I don't need thousands of words to describe actual reality, yet it's supposedly me that's twisting the argument....

Uh oh... someone's in denial.  


I don't have to play with anything to make a point.  Reality makes the point perfectly well enough all by itself.  A team that isn't that "1 team" you like to pretend is the only one that exists just had a BIP lock in on the network by miners using another piece of software.  Software that the "1 team" didn't make.  Or are you now claiming that Core merged BIP91 into BitcoinCore and we didn't see those warning messages about a block format it couldn't recognise?  You are empirically and demonstrably wrong, because we already have more than one development team with code actively deployed on the network, and it didn't require a hard fork to do it.  You're the one desperately trying to twist words to make that simple fact somehow look like an act of theft, when it patently isn't.  Stop living in denial and accept the plain-as-day truth that Bitcoin functions perfectly well with multiple developers providing code.  It's beyond refute now.  It literally happened.  We all saw it.  

And yes, if a hard fork does occur, people are perfectly free to chose their path as well, but that's not what we're talking about here.  This is about more than one development team providing code to the same chain and it still works faultlessly.  Stop arguing.  You can't win this one.  Anyone with eyes can see it.  This is the new reality you need to adjust to.  I suggest you find a way to cope with that.

You can have a favourite team who you like to support if you want, but this isn't sports.  There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser at the end of the day.  All teams can chip in and help out and everyone wins by having a choice.  That's the beauty of it all.  It's an astonishing feat that it still works with so many dissenting views thundering away in the background.  We've successfully disproven the idiom that "too many cooks spoil the broth" and yet you don't seem pleased by that accomplishment.  Why can't you just appreciate it for what it is and revel in its splendour?  

And at the very least, even if you can't appreciate the beauty of it, could you at least stop trying to pervert it into something sordid with your petty accusations of theft and ill-intent?

Previous to this, the big blockers had always seen missed deadlines as Segwit Supporters (I don't like the term but will use it as the article did) reneging on promises. But I'm not sure that even with Segwit2x there is any promise - rather a commitment to compromise.

There is one more possible outcome I believe. Post SegWit, some would hope that a few from the big blockers side would be convinced that SegWit is enough and a block size increase not necessary. Perhaps they might switch sides, or at least further postpone 2MB?

From what I can tell, there is a softening stance on both sides. I don't see any reason for this compromise not to take place, but assuming there are still plenty of reasonable people on both sides, you never know how the outlook could change after each step of the way. Things should get clearer after full Segwit activation.

I'll check back when http://segwit.co/ says yes.

There's a lot of preparation, a lot of stress during the process, and a lot of stress afterwards. For that reason I think the people are willing to accept a lot of limitations in their coins for the next month or so because they don't want to have to go through that. In reality it was a real tension week or so for all the bitcoin holders and miners too.