Topic: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan - page 2. (Read 4578 times)

My point was regarding the special case where a single individual who might not like one of the resulting chains controls a huge percentage, at least 5% of outstanding coins.  Is there anyone like that in eth?  Maybe the DAO hacker if they hadn't forked... I think that was several percent of all eth.  And, in fact, maybe someone else did control that much eth, and maybe that's why etc is at least an order of magnitude cheaper.

If for example Satoshi dumped a billion dollars on BU, he could take those profits and buy core BTC, and make it more profitable for miners to mine core. Obviously this is all unlikely, but if it did happen it would have lasting impact imo.  He wouldn't even have to sell them necessarily, he could just move them to exchanges and say if you want the price of BU btc higher than X you better be prepared to buy $1 billion dollars of my BU btc.

10min-2 hours minutes of pressing send and waiting for funds to confirm into an exchange
placing an order and selling the coins.

once sold, then what..

oh yea over a century of blocks still producing.

a few hours of price drama maybe even a few weeks.. compared to a century of block creation = temporary price drama

much like ethereum.. the price drama of their bilateral split is over. people dont think its exciting and just treat it as 2 alts. much like non-exciting trading between say bitcoin and litecoin.. no drama the litecoin/bitcoin drama ended in mid 2012... just a couple months after litecoin got popular then slowed down..

but now 5 years on..  bitcoin and litecoin are doing their own thing.
meaning a hard fork based purely on greed of people only caring about the price/'double' coin hopes.. are not thinking about the big picture or caring about bitcoin as a diverse single consensus network. they just care about some temporal price drama

The usual suspects.


Well yeah Hal is dead (r.i.p.).. if you think he was alone.


I dunno.. 5-10% of outstanding btc might not be "temporary price drama". 

Lets say hypothetically there is a split, and BU gets vast majority of hashrate, and BU price is around $1000.  Then Satoshi would control roughly $800 million to $1.6 billion worth of bitcoin.  Lets say he had very strong reasons to dislike BU, and also felt that in a free market, anybody should be able to sell their coins whenever they want.  I don't know what the total order book liquidity across all the exchanges would be for BU, but I doubt it could withstand the epic tsunami of one billion dollars worth of Satoshi's BU coins raining down upon them.

I see that some of us are pessimistic, and words like "blood bath" are used...Isn't this exagerated ?

The reasons for which the system will stay solid and continue to grow are strong : BTC is by (very) far the biggest and strongest alternative currency with a rather "long" and consistent history - demonstrating the technical and financial validity of the concept - and millions of users, the majority of which (including developpers who are also stake-holders and BTC investors) have a common interest in keeping everything "in working condition".

Many difficulties have been successfully overcome in the past, with a general increase in value, and a reinforced confidence in the BTC. The current drop in exchange rate is moderate - no more than roughly 10 per cent if you put apart the speculative peak to USD 1200 due to the hope of an ETF approval. There are reasons to believe that investors have somewhat anticipated the "BTU issue", hence the hesitation of the market.

I am far from being a specialist, but by reading the comments of many experts of both sides, I have the impression that in general there is a consensus that, although there will be some technical issues to address, the money that we own in BTC will not "disappear". Many competent people will continue to work hard to technically overcome the fork issue if it happens, and if the BTC "system" (buying and selling) continues to work, the rest will be essentially a matter of trust and time...

Sad? Why would it be sad? The big blockers are saying that a fork is "healthy" and at some point, to make everyone happy, it is unavoidable. Some people with Core themselves think almost the same. If you're not happy then go ahead and do a hard fork.

The only sad thing I can see happening here with all the Bitcoiners is the dropping price. Get over it.

These blood letting portends no good experience for the average user, whales stands to buy back at ridiculous low prices, while average joe might have had a chunk of his worth and purchasing power gone with the wind. What to do now Guess the time is ripe for migration while these two elephants make a show of their sizes.

i think yes that is too much important to keep it now and not to sell. i think the everything will be ok very soon. the price is going to get a strong support here and hope that the price of bitcoin is not going to fell down any more.

I understand, thank you very much.
Now, what happens when I spend some BTC ? Do I have to print again the paper wallet, or does is contain only (sort of) passwords ?

You can, however the safety of your private key will then be as safe as the weakest link (most likely your pc), so make sure to keep your pc safe. Except for that it's a good way to backup your private keys

By the way, can one keep his BTC both on a paper wallet and in a PC-Based (say Electrum) wallet ?

No.  Nothing will happen in any case, and if it happens, that's the safest thing you can do: keep it there until the storm is over.  Maybe they won't be worth much any more, but you'll still have them 

Confused by this news. I have all my bitcoin in offline paper wallets. Do i need to do anything.

No, of course not.  If you change the PoW algorithm, for instance, you implement Scrypt, you simply make an altcoin with a bidirectional hard fork.  

You make a NEW POPULATION OF MINERS.

Both coins will be on the market now, one with a SHA256 hash and one with a Scrypt hash.  The market will now decide how the market cap will be divided over both coins.

If it is true that the users prefer the new coin, then indeed, the former miners will be on a worthless chain.  But we now have simply a NEW miner population.

Note that the nodes didn't count for zilch in this transition.  It was a new miner population on a hard fork that was taking over, not nodes.   But the USERS decided in the market.

However, think of this.  The new miner population will be running at low difficulty, because there's not much hash power available for Scrypt.  The security of the new chain will be miles below the security of the old chain, and the new scrypt miners will make a fortune, with small gear, reaping in high rewards.

So it isn't guaranteed that the users will make the switch.  Hell, if they wanted to, they could have exchanged their bitcoin for litecoin right away, because this other coin already exists !!

So this "take over" is far from guaranteed to succeed, and in any case, it is then a battle between two miner populations, and NODES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

There where it gets trickier, and might be an outcome for bitcoin, is if one launched a proof-of-stake version of bitcoin.  A hard fork that uses proof of stake instead of proof of work.  Like ethereum plans to do.  

At a certain point, you don't care any more about any miner, because there's no mining any more.  In fact, just any person could launch a proof-of-stake version of bitcoin.  If the code is available, people can install this.  But again, it is a hard fork and will be decided in the market.  

This might actually be a good idea: to make a proof-of-stake version of bitcoin.  But it will just be an alt coin.  Will people switch entirely to it in the market ?  Highly doubtfull too.  But at least, with proof of stake, there is no miner war any more: the consensus is this time determined by the stake holders, and not by a separate interest group.

In that case, nodes become slightly more important, because stake holders have also to keep their nodes running to mint blocks.  This might be an idea.  But it won't catch on, I'm sure.  Because it would be an alt coin, and would not carry the brand of bitcoin.

Forking off bitcoin is something that I'm surprised is not done more for altcoin makers.  I would never start a new genesis block if I wanted to make an alt coin, I would fork off bitcoin, eventually with a special forking bloc giving me some premine.

So, conclusion:
in any case, nobody "forced bitcoin" to do what ever because nodes decided so.  At best, an altcoin is forked off from bitcoin which has such a big success in the market that it completely overtakes bitcoin, but that is already possible right now: if people want 4 times more room and another algorithm: litecoin is already in the market (note that it has segwit ready to be activated too, but it is not catching on there either).

And if people really are fed up with miners, they can fork off a proof-of-stake coin, but, hey, if ethereum does the same, why not simply buy ethereum ?  Or peercoin, for that matter ?

So that's visibly not what people really really want and in any case, it is an alt coin that is made NEXT TO BITCOIN.

Emergency hard fork PoW change -> all miners are fired and all their gear is effectively useless.

Same as above if needed.

---

Both situations are a hostile takeover.

I explained the mechanism in every detail.  Just saying "you are wrong" without any logically build argument, is no tt going to cut it.  I know many people are deluded on this, but the earth goes around the sun, and not the other way around, no matter what the Cardinals have been preaching.  Learn to think for yourself.

In a proof of work system, the consensus is made by those providing proof of work.  But ultimately they will take into account those that pay for the joke, that is, the users in the market.  And that's it.

Counter my argument that:
1)  if miners agree (PoW consensus), there is only one single source of block chain, namely the chain on which they work, and which can only  be obtained from one of their nodes
2) there ain't any other block chain around
3) all that non mining nodes can do, is download this block chain, directly from one of the miner's nodes, or from a copy of one of their peers, but if they want to have a block chain, they'll have to obtain it.
4) miners, in order to be efficient, have to have good direct connections amongst their own nodes, in order to be quickly aware of the new blocks so not to get orphaned
5) miners, having invested a lot in mining, can easily set up "data center type" nodes to which ALL other nodes that want a copy of the block chain, can connect, and non-mining node owners cannot have any other block chain than the one they can obtain from one of these "big" nodes.  As long as the distributed network of proxy nodes does the work for them, that's OK, but if they have to invest in such a big data center node, they will, because they want to serve their customers, the users, and get their transactions, and deliver the block chain to them, so that these users continue to pump money in the market where the miners sell their coins.
6) if a non-mining node doesn't agree with the block chain that is produced by miners, it simply stops because there is no other chain around.  A non-mining node cannot stop miners from making the chain THEY agreed upon.

As such, this proves clearly that in a proof of work system, the consensus is the one between those delivering proof of work and no-one else.

But, these proof of work deliverers will take into account all signals from the MARKET to optimize their earnings (that is, to optimize the amount of coins they can get from reward and fees, times what the market sets as a price for those coins).  In as much as nodes are an indication of the sentiment amongst market makers, they will take that into account in their consensus to optimise their earnings.

Exercise:
1) suppose ALL miners agree upon 4 MB blocks, even though all users want to have 1 MB blocks.  The miners only make one chain, with 4 MB blocks.  What are users and nodes, including exchanges, going to do ? 

2) suppose that ALL miners agree upon 1 MB blocks, even though all users want to have 4 MB blocks.  The miners only make one chain, with 1 MB blocks.  What are users and nodes, including exchanges, going to do ?

Tell me how nodes impose their will onto miners, if miners come to a consensus.

Nonsense. It is clear as sky that you are very uninformed and ignorant. Jihan has far more than 16%. What Antpool is mining is just a tiny part of that.

They will never have a majority. They have a very tiny minority.

Dumping almost 1 million Bitcoin is "temporary price drama"?

No. You don't understand how consensus works. Even I agree with franky1 on this one.

In a proof of work system, majority is majority of hash rate.  That is what consensus is about.   In a proof of stake system, majority is majority of stake.  And in a proof of node system, majority is majority of nodes.  Easily Sybil attacked, hence not meaningful.

A hard fork over economic parameters is a revolution.

When these limits were increased, there wasn't yet a fee market.  It was still a totally technical parameter that could be changed without too much hassle.  In fact, as long as there is no pressure on the fee market, miners have tendency to INCREASE the block size in order to get more transactions, and hence more fees, fees that are very small.
After the last block reward halving, which coincided more or less with the emergence of a fee market (that is, sometimes full blocks and "fighting for a place") however, this block size became an economic parameter.

You are right that they could reduce block size now with a soft fork, diminishing the accepted block size, but *in order for a soft fork to succeed, it must have 51% of mining power*. 

A miner voluntarily reducing HIS blocks to 512 KB he would just reap in less fees, augmenting the pressure on the market and increase the fees HIS competitors will reap in at double dose (1 MB).
If he only builds on blocks of 512 KB, and there's no 51% miner hash rate doing the same, all his blocks will be orphaned.

So:
1) there's no individual advantage to produce 512KB blocks, and forego half of the fees that 1MB blocks bring to competitors
2) trying to orphan 1MB blocks if you don't have more than 51% of hash power doing the same will only lead you, as a miner, to produce orphaned blocks.

3) the "common good" for miners, to reduce blocks even more, is offset by the tragedy of the commons.  They first have to agree amongst themselves to apply this block reduction with more than 51% of hash rate, for this soft fork to succeed.

==> it won't happen.

FTFY

by the way there are MANY implementations ready for dynamic blocks this includes some people with copies of core with say 2mb/4mb/8mb limit set. meaning they accept anything below those limits.

its not just a BU vs debate its a dynamic vs 1mb base debate.
its doesnt have to be exactly BU's design that needs to be followed word for word. as long as there are the ability to go passed the 1mb limit. it will be acceptable to consensus.

also pools wont just jump straight to 2mb on activation day. pools will try a 1.000250 block and see the orphan risk. and then if happy that consensus accepts it. it will increase in small increments of acceptability