Topic: Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC? - page 3. (Read 2370 times)
The goal is not to destroy Bitcoin, but to get control of it's development, either by convincing community that some new team is better than Core, or by pressuring Core into accepting decisions of forkers, under threat of network splits. SegWit2x is basically about miners threatening to stop mining Bitcoin, so the network will get disrupted and unsecured, their ultimate goal is to force Core accept 2x fork. Forkers realize that they need Core to keep developing Bitcoin, because it's the best group of developers right now.
It really depends on the fork, i can say that the soft fork is much safer than hard fork because in soft fork there is no split and only the block size is being change and just some modifications like the segwit which is a kind of soft fork and that is safe
This is where it gets a bit murky. Soft forks can absolutely result in network splits. I actually thought that BIP148 was incredibly reckless. There is a big difference between a miner-activated soft fork (which results in no split) and a user-activated "soft fork" which can cause an incompatible chain split that is basically indistinguishable from a hard fork.
I'm torn between being thankful to the BIP148 crowd for getting Segwit activated, and feeling embittered that they operated on so much deception about how UASFs work. e.g. Luke with the "if miners don't follow the UASF, they are 51% attacking the network" and "Twitter polls are good enough to suggest consensus for BIP148".....
It really depends on the fork, i can say that the soft fork is much safer than hard fork because in soft fork there is no split and only the block size is being change and just some modifications like the segwit which is a kind of soft fork and that is safe because it will just add more size into the block size and modify the current system and implement lightning network unlike hardfork that there is a proposal of having 2 chains which is very risky for the original coin because the users might migrate to the clone coin.
I think there are two groups of forkers:
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.
What you say here is exactly the problem. There are so many greedy people in crypto, and because it's unregulated by governments, they can do whatever they want within the current laws.
Look at all the scammy ICO's. People are loosing tons of money on shitcoins, and promises of greater things, and in the end there is only one winner. The team behind who is milking all the ICO money into their pockets!
As for bitcoin cash! they should have made a new altcoin with a new blockchain instead of trying to call themself bitcoin cash. They will never be bitcoin, they will always be "something"cash.
If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support. You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to. That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources. Use your own if you can't agree.
That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies.
I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with. I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all. Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with. Just a thought...
Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests.
If you're operating on a completely separate chain, remember that you wouldn't have to equal the hashrate of the miners on the chain you disagree with. You could get by with lots of smaller mining operations working in unison towards your desired goal. The world is only as you want to build it. Contribute what you want, where you want, when you want. Just don't tell others what/where/when they can or can't contribute. If they don't share your interests, just leave them be and do your own thing. Such is the beauty of open-source crypto.
As a reminder, the alternative to this is closed-source crypto. This requires you placing total 100% trust in a group of developers to make every single last decision. If you don't agree with those decisions, you can't take part anymore and you can't fork the code either. That's what I'd call control, force and coercion. Luckily that isn't Bitcoin, so I suggest everyone stops trying to turn it into that horrid scenario and just learn to appreciate it for what it is:
Freedom.
(Not control)
Credibility points deducted. Core do not control Bitcoin...
No one is in control.
Credibility points deducted.
This is pure BS!! Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently). They decide what code gets included.
Just ask Gavin Andresen about how much control they have.
Core have control over their own repository. Different developers have control over different repositories. The important distinction to make is that the code in those different repositories is not Bitcoin until a supermajority of those securing the chain, a combination of both mining and non-mining nodes, enforce the rules in that code to make it Bitcoin.
The issue seems to be that we've spent so long with centralised development, some people have deluded themselves into thinking that's the only way it can work. Evidently that isn't true. Despite the different codebases competing for market share, we're still able to transact. That's all it is. A free and open market.
Again, no one single developer, or group of developers has control. No one can force anyone to run any code they don't want to run. Everything is opt-in. Please refer to my previous post in full.
Actually, I agree with your larger point, that anyone may choose to use whichever code-set they choose, and you are absolutely right with your statement regarding centralized development, which is why I applaud the guys who had the fortitude to stand up and present an alternative, knowing they would be accused of all sorts of things along the way.
Your discussion on centralized development is the point I was trying to make, until recently Bitcoin Core had the 'bully pulpit' of the bitcoin world by means of what figmentofmyass was saying.
there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.
in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).
in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).
If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support. You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to. That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources. Use your own if you can't agree.
That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies.
I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with. I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all. Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with. Just a thought...
Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests.
Credibility points deducted. Core do not control Bitcoin...
No one is in control.
Credibility points deducted.
This is pure BS!! Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently). They decide what code gets included.
Just ask Marc Andresen about how much control they have.
Core have control over their own repository. Different developers have control over different repositories. The important distinction to make is that the code in those different repositories is not Bitcoin until a supermajority of those securing the chain, a combination of both mining and non-mining nodes, enforce the rules in that code to make it Bitcoin.
The issue seems to be that we've spent so long with centralised development, some people have deluded themselves into thinking that's the only way it can work. Evidently that isn't true. Despite the different codebases competing for market share, we're still able to transact. That's all it is. A free and open market.
Again, no one single developer, or group of developers has control. No one can force anyone to run any code they don't want to run. Everything is opt-in. Please refer to my previous post in full.
In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.
LOL. All hardforks are opt-in. The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you. But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with. But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower. So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place. There's still no force or control involved though. There is only the alignment of incentives. Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.
The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you. You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything. They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.
there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.
in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).
If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support. You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to. That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources. Use your own if you can't agree.
I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with. I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all. Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with. Just a thought...
//EDIT: And to the owners of this forum and bitcoin.org, you must have a crapton of wealth being involved since the early days. Where is your hashpower? Why are you part of this ever-expanding, something-for-nothing, self-entitled bullshit culture that seems to permeate the community? If you started mining, maybe you wouldn't feel quite as much pressure to tell everyone else what Bitcoin "should" be, because you could influence that directly for yourselves.
In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.
LOL. All hardforks are opt-in. The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you. But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with. But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower. So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place. There's still no force or control involved though. There is only the alignment of incentives. Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.
The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you. You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything. They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.
there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.
in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).
Credibility points deducted. Core do not control Bitcoin...
No one is in control.
Credibility points deducted.
This is pure BS!! Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently). They decide what code gets included.
Just ask Gavin Andresen, or Jeff Garzik about how much control they have.
The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
The code devs have so far failed in their attempt to resolve the scaling issues. Please check the number of unconfirmed transactions. The number has swung between 50,000 and 100,000 for any time during the last 2 weeks. This can't go ahead in the long term, especially as the number of users are rising. There needs to be a permanent solution, and the core devs don't have any.
This is the kind of thing that happens when people wake up and realize they have been letting a central authority tell them what to do and how to manage their assets. It's called 'rebellion.'
As the supposed shepherds of bitcoin (because they control access to the primary bitcoin repository and get to decide which changes to allow), Bitcoin Core overstepped the bounds of authority for a decentralized system by kicking out one of the primary core developers (who tried to fix a problem) and then sitting on their hands and refusing to fix the scale-ability issue for which the masses were pleading. (I suspect that someone with deep pockets and a strong interest in maintaining the status quo was influencing them.)
So what happens? A couple of groups of developers, took up the challenge to fix the issue, and since they couldn't get their work incorporated into Core, the only logical choice was to fork the chain, start a new currency, and let the markets/users decide.
Unless there are other major changes, I suspect that we will see a stability develop in which one chain becomes the 'store of value', like gold in a vault, and one will become a truly spendable currency/medium of exchange.
None of these players want to hurt bitcoin. They just want it to work like they believe it should. Perhaps they are both/all right...
As the supposed shepherds of bitcoin (because they control access to the primary bitcoin repository and get to decide which changes to allow), Bitcoin Core overstepped the bounds of authority for a decentralized system by kicking out one of the primary core developers (who tried to fix a problem) and then sitting on their hands and refusing to fix the scale-ability issue for which the masses were pleading. (I suspect that someone with deep pockets and a strong interest in maintaining the status quo was influencing them.)
So what happens? A couple of groups of developers, took up the challenge to fix the issue, and since they couldn't get their work incorporated into Core, the only logical choice was to fork the chain, start a new currency, and let the markets/users decide.
Unless there are other major changes, I suspect that we will see a stability develop in which one chain becomes the 'store of value', like gold in a vault, and one will become a truly spendable currency/medium of exchange.
None of these players want to hurt bitcoin. They just want it to work like they believe it should. Perhaps they are both/all right...
I'm mentally deducting credibility points from anyone who uses those phrases. The "hostile takeover", "cabal", "benevolent dictator", "taking control", etc, because they all imply that the user of those phrases simply doesn't understand the core tenet of permissionless.
And yet...
The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
Credibility points deducted. Core do not control Bitcoin, thus there is no control to wrest. Developers cannot be replaced because they can always contribute code to the chain they want to support. Again, you have the concepts of control and freedom completely ass-backwards.
Miners can't force Developers to follow them.
Miners can't force Non-mining Nodes to follow them.
Developers can't force Miners to follow them.
Developers can't force Non-mining Nodes to follow them.
Non-mining Nodes can't force Developers to follow them.
Non-mining Nodes can't force Miners to follow them.
All participants are free to do whatever the hell they want and, one way or another, some combination of those participants will create the greatest incentive to follow their chain.
The flaw in your thinking is that it's somehow a binary choice between miners and devs about who "leads". It isn't. Neither one should be "in control". Neither one is "in control". So the two have the freedom to go their separate ways if that's what they want to do (and don't forget about the non-mining nodes and the role they play in balancing it all out). So keep playing conspiracy if that's what helps you sleep at night, but in the end, all the hype and drama is a feeble distraction to what's actually happening. And what's happening right now is a clear and vivid demonstration that at least half the people on this forum who think they understand Bitcoin, haven't got the slightest clue. Reality is biting hard, yet still people somehow refuse to see it. Right in front of your eyes, you have clear and undeniable proof that control has no relevance because no one is backing down.
No one is in control.
Permissionless.
Learn it.
In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.
LOL. All hardforks are opt-in. The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you. But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with. But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower. So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place. There's still no force or control involved though. There is only the alignment of incentives. Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.
The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you. You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything. They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.
The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.
That's at least partly the goal. Jihan Wu and company has been pretty open about it too. I think they invented the word "De-Coreifying" while mass deleting commits from Bitcoin ABC after it was forked from Bitcoin. Part of the selling point here is that Core is being "replaced"; that's been what the r/btc and Bitcoin Unlimited crowd has been clamoring for for years now.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
I think some of the forkers may actually have good intentions, but their arguments and solutions are terrible.
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
Bitcoin is killing itself! Have you tried purchasing a cup of coffee, lately, with bitcoin? Fees: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ <---This is ridiculous ---> it costs more for the transaction than it does for the product itself. This cannot hold....the forkers are trying to fix the broken platform, not kill it.
Give it time. Segwit is locked in and will be activated soon. Much testing has been done on the Lightning Network, and conceivably, transacting on LN could be much cheaper than transacting fully on-chain. And without any trust involved! But without Segwit, it will be much harder to implement. Even Segwit itself will provide a capacity increase, lowering fees in the interim. I'm not too worried.
The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
Bitcoin is killing itself! Have you tried purchasing a cup of coffee, lately, with bitcoin? Fees: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ <---This is ridiculous ---> it costs more for the transaction than it does for the product itself. This cannot hold....the forkers are trying to fix the broken platform, not kill it.
There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.
It seems Satoshi was very idealistic to believe that economical interest will be the main reason for the miners to protect the network. It seems miners has form a cartel and they are against their economical interest and only want to destroy bitcoin.
It seems Satoshi was very idealistic to believe that economical interest will be the main reason for the miners to protect the network. It seems miners has form a cartel and they are against their economical interest and only want to destroy bitcoin.
The response to this is very easy, they don't aim to kill the blockchain, they just want to divide this huge power into small pieces so that they can take some pieces under their control. Then they can start to rule. The story is this, for me.
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
That is exactly what they are trying to achieve, they cannot become bitcoin if they do not kill the current bitcoin, this is a battle about power and the miners are trying to have an even greater influence in the network and the devs of core are doing their best to try to keep that influence at bay, I think at the end bitcoin is going to win but difficult times are ahead of us. There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.
Bingo. It's been said that AsicBoost could increase Bitmain's output by 30%. Segwit apparently threatens that. The solution? Create market demand for a BTC fork that keeps AsicBoost (and their hash power majority) intact.
They don't necessarily need to kill BTC. They just need Bitcoin Cash to be large enough to sustain demand and remain a top coin in the long term. They are obviously vying for Bitcoin's title, but they don't need to kill Bitcoin to do that, either.
Jump to: