Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 75. (Read 154787 times)

Bitcoin has an impressive 'legacy'.  It succeeded in achieving things that I always considered theoretically possible but not very likely, but it could easily tumble into the abyss.  As a citizen of the United States of America I am keenly aware of such tragedies.

I also own the domain name 'bitcoin-legacy.org' and will happily give it away with no strings attached to a number of the people I know to be associated with Blockstream if they can make use of it.  The same offer might be extended to others if I can achieve a similar level of confidence in them that the likes of Maxwell and Wuille have earned over the years.

I own the domain because the threat of a hard-fork and the subsequent nearly inevitable subversion of Bitcoin have been realistic and ongoing threats for a long time.

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

One thing I've learnt in life so far is what people tell you they are going to do, doesn't always align to what they actually do.

I like the way you've subconsciously described "mpcoin" as 'legacy'. It tends to suggest old, outdated, obsolete, defunct etc... Bit of a negative word in my opinion.

Maybe your subconscious is telling you something?
Just sayin.

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

No, it was for ghdp.

When people start to panic they often start to babble.  Some people are more prone to this than others.  Give they guy a break.  I questioned what the fuck he was trying to say and to who for a brief moment, but clearly it doesn't matter one way or the other.

What that a question for me or someone else?
If it was me,  won't be any what? Crazy over what?

There won't be any way. Why are you getting so crazy about it?

Yes I see now, your mixing in the fresh coins from only one chain so it will be rejected by the other.

Nobody knows if there will be address extensions (or negative-extensions) associated with either the hard-fork or accepted by the maintainers of 'bitcoin-legacy'.  Probably there will not be either of these on either fork.

What I will do is to 'split/double' my stash as quickly as possible.  This is simply a matter of performing spends (to myself) in such a way that they are recognized in 'gavincoin' but not in 'bitcoin-legacy' (aka 'mpcoin').  To some extent that may be just a matter of waiting until some blocks exceed 1MB where they will be spent on one fork and not the other.

If that does not work because my transactions are replayed onto the 'bitcoin-legacy' fork anyway for whatever reason, then I will get some one-chain self-spends by obtaining some BTC which are contaminated with 'gavincoin' coinbase (the 25 BTC mining reward) and mix them into these to-self transactions.

Now that I have my coins split I will wait for a good opportunity to liquidate my gavincoins.  This will probably be sooner than later.  Probably there will be a window opened up by the infusion of mysterious capital when it looks like things have recovered from the hard-fork and everyone breaths a sigh of relief and valuations climb.  Eventually the real point of the hard-fork will be revealed and the true nature of the hard-fork becomes apparent.  When you find the path of least resistance is to obtain a 'bitcoin licence' you will start to understand the rational for gavincoin better.  The sweet-spot for capitalizing on gavincoin will be between this faux-recovery and recognition of the awful truth , and that's what my new 'gavincoin-only' hoard is earmarked for.

If/when 'gavincoin' starts to lose out as people realize they've been snookered, and when 'licencing' allows it, it could be that 'gavincoin' which can be traced to circulation on 'mpcoin' will be blacklisted (or redlisted or purplelisted or whatever TPTB wants to call it) and one will lose the ability to capitalize on the double-play.  Best to have an incremental plan for liquidating this cloned stash.  The Bitcoin Foundation and associated parties have been instrumental in provoking the hard-fork and have been pretty secretive.  Insiders may know what's coming down the pike and when, but others probably will not.


If I were consulting with the 'bitcoin-legacy' effort, here would be some suggestions I would offer:

 - Prepare the userbase for long confirmation times.  In order to be considered solid, a transaction will need to become buried very deep in the chain.  The reason is that we expect attacks and will need to be able to detect and thwart them.  This is actually a blessing in disguise.  A 'free' native Bitcoin is not, nor can it ever realistically be something that a high percentage of the population uses for buying trinkets.  This would be a good juncture for losing such misinformed participants.

 - Locate and work with the Blockstream folks.  A 'free' Bitcoin is what is needed as a trusted backing store necessary for an infinitely scalable set of sidechains.  If use of the backing store requires a 'bitcoin license' and is susceptible to whitelisting or blacklisting then so will any solution built on top of the backing store.  There is a natural symbiosis between 'bitcoin-legacy' and sidechains.

 - Consider playing dead for a period even if it takes some effort!  This will help more than it will hurt.  'mpcoin' is like gold in a vault, getting the attention off the solution is a good thing, and the people who would be turned off by this are people who are more of a liability anyway.

Possibly the Blockstream folks are planning to maintain a free Bitcoin irrespective of what Popescu does.  Possibly Popescu is so vain and has burnt so many bridges that he would not wish to work with the Blockstream guys even if they wanted to work with him (which is also a big if as well.)  If these differences can be overcome I see great potential.  Popescu's (and company's) work to get cheap full nodes created seems to be coming along well and he's cultivated the 'mpcoin' brand nicely (or so it seems from reading this thread.)  Popescu probably has the native ability to understand the inherent power of the reserve-currency/exchange-currencies level of abstraction so it's mostly a matter of whether giving the masses the power of Bitcoin is simply unpalatable to him on principle or not.  If not, we who take pains to keep a stash of legacy Bitcoins could well make a ton of money AND do something worthwhile for humanity as well.

 - edit: spelling

If some miners don't fork, will those miners be able to send messages through the alert system? If not, then merchants need to be aware that only the authentic Bitcoin blockchain  has the keys to send alert messages.

The same address, provided your transaction gets included by both chains.
If not, one chain will think that the initial 10 btc never actually moved.

The same one the 1 coin payment was made.

Here's a question.
Say I had 10 coins in a single address. The fork happens and the network splits in two. I then send 1 coin to someone using a single 10 coin input. 1 coin output to the person and 9 coins output back in change.

Have I any way of knowing which chain the change will come back to me on?

Actually it will be trivial.

Point a CPU miner or whatever at Eligius, receive a couple satoshis directly from a fresh coinbase as a reward, wait 120 confirmations.
And here you go, you now have an output that's spendable strictly on one chain, and that you can use in any transaction to easily split an arbitrarily large amount of coins, which you can reuse to split more, and more, and more coins.

What it means is that the odds of a speculative attack on the large chain has a low probability of success.

Also, due to the nature of the attack, somebody who starts one and fails suddenly ends up poor.

It's a trigger the attacker can only be sure of pulling once.

Probably so.  I mostly wish Gavin's latest proposal was less of a bad one.  They get better with each redo though, and there is still time.

I see. The 1MB and 20MB nodes will still be connected, not separate. I don't like the sound of that.
I guess the bet would be just hold tight and not send anything till it all settles down.

It will not be trivial to end up with separately-spendable coins on both chains.

At first, every transaction broadcast on the 1MB network will be a valid transaction on the 20 MB network.

In fact, there would most likely be many nodes listening to both and intentionally relaying transactions from the 1 MB network to the 20 MB network to make sure they get included in both.

In order to double your coins, you need to get one transaction mined in the small chain and a conflicting transaction mined in the large chain.

It's a race with a low probability of success.