Don't nitpick on the hypothetical scenario. I made up the scenario after reading one of the discussion in Development and Technical Discussion forum.
However, the concern remains. There will be many more other decisions/debates as Bitcoin evolves. You can't just sweep the dirts under the carpet and pretend they don't exist.
Almost all popular open source projects ended up with some form of project forks. There are four possible outcomes from open source fork:
* The fork dies
* The fork merges with the original
* The fork becomes so popular that it draws developers and users away from the original. Original project eventually dies.
* Both original and fork survive - perhaps by attracting different audiences or meeting different user needs.
So far, we have witnessed many forks of alt-cryptocurrency, but mostly at code-based level, but not code-based + data + users
What make you believe so strongly such kind of forking won't happen to Bitcoin? Absolute trust in every decisions made by the current developers?
Topic: Can Bitcoin survive a real fork? - page 2. (Read 2702 times)
I'm more into question how would situation when there massive loss of connectivity between geographical areas, namely continents be handled?
In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...
As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...
In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...
As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...
If aliens cut the planet in half, we'll have bigger problems.
Considering the relatively low amount of network traffic needed to move blocks around, that is about the most likely scenario. No other network severing would be complete enough to cause those problems.
I'm more into question how would situation when there massive loss of connectivity between geographical areas, namely continents be handled?
In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...
As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...
In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...
As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...
Isn't the point of the fork is to make bitcoin survive? (Considering one is needed)
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but the capital that has formed around bitcoin likes the current rules.
This.
you are quite right. the reason Bitcoin has become as popular as it has is b/c of the economic promises it has made in the form of the hard rules it has encoded. the ppl who've joined Bitcoin are not going to switch to something else that results in theft of value. we have already agreed to this in principle.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
"If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen" that sounds like voting to me.
And thanks for elaborating the seriousness of a project fork.
If it is a minor fork, where only 10% of the miners left, their chain will die naturally like how you reasoned.
However, if it is a not so minor fork, such as a 30-40% split, the chance of Bitcoin collapsing will be much higher. Because you can't be sure who else from the majority camp will betray. They are equally likely to dump all the coins on the majority camp, and "deflect" to the other one.
If it is a 50-50 split, both will die.
But, it won't be a 50-50 split, at least not in terms that matter. It won't even be close.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but the capital that has formed around bitcoin likes the current rules. The economic power of the system is not going to move from a good system to a shitty one, no matter how many people want to go looting.
The whiny crybabies simply lack the ability to screw with the main chain, but the people staying with bitcoin will be able to utterly destroy the fake one.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
"If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen" that sounds like voting to me.
And thanks for elaborating the seriousness of a project fork.
If it is a minor fork, where only 10% of the miners left, their chain will die naturally like how you reasoned.
However, if it is a not so minor fork, such as a 30-40% split, the chance of Bitcoin collapsing will be much higher. Because you can't be sure who else from the majority camp will betray. They are equally likely to dump all the coins on the majority camp, and "deflect" to the other one.
If it is a 50-50 split, both will die.
You know what's interesting though, I bet somewhere around 50% of the coins ever mined, especially in the 10,000 coins for a pizza day, were deleted, formatted, never backed up, experimented with. Etc Etc..
I bet we won't ever have have 21 million coins... or as now the Total Number of Bitcoins = 11,097,600
I bet people actually control closer to 5 million or so coins. The other 6 million were formatted, wiped , lost, etc.
I bet we won't ever have have 21 million coins... or as now the Total Number of Bitcoins = 11,097,600
I bet people actually control closer to 5 million or so coins. The other 6 million were formatted, wiped , lost, etc.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
There is no voting. If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned. Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings. Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet. This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).
As open source project evolves, it will attract more contributors into the project development. They can help to improve the code to make it more efficient and perhaps adding new features along the way. However, with more contributors, conflicts will also arise because human beings can't always agree with each other -- especially when the group gets larger.
In other open source projects, groups can resolve disagreement with new project fork and carry on with the development in separate ways. However, in the case of Bitcoin, such fork may be fatal to the survival of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let me illustrate my point with a hypothetical scenario: "A group of developer wants to change the rule of Bitcoin network to allow old coins that have not been transacted/circulated for x number of years to be recycled as mining reward in future blocks. A vote is conducted and 40% of the active Bitcoin users is in favor of this idea. A fork is done, with 60% of the miner staying with the original Bitcoin project, and 40% of the miners move on to the new fork".
Unlike project forks that restart the blockchain, such as Litecoin and Bytecoin, the fork that resulted from this hypothetical scenario will likely continue with the current blockchain. In the short term, many of the users with bitcoins in their wallet might not even reject such fork, as their wealth have seemingly doubled with their coins appearing in both the blockchain. However, in reality, the network security for both the branches have been severely weaken, making them more vulnerable to 51% attack, which may then result in downward spiral for bitcoiners to lose confident in the system.
Applying Prisoner's Dilemma, these two groups might not cooperate, even if it is in their best interests to do so (i.e. not to fork). The 0.7/0.8 fork issue was resolved quickly because majority of the people agreed to cooperate. But there will likely be more decisions to be made in the future, and we can't be sure how groups of people will react the next time.
The possibility of a future project fork, is like knowing that there is a bomb in the system but you have no ability to disarm.
If democracy is what made Bitcoin successful today, it will also be the same democracy that kills Bitcoin in the future.
In other open source projects, groups can resolve disagreement with new project fork and carry on with the development in separate ways. However, in the case of Bitcoin, such fork may be fatal to the survival of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let me illustrate my point with a hypothetical scenario: "A group of developer wants to change the rule of Bitcoin network to allow old coins that have not been transacted/circulated for x number of years to be recycled as mining reward in future blocks. A vote is conducted and 40% of the active Bitcoin users is in favor of this idea. A fork is done, with 60% of the miner staying with the original Bitcoin project, and 40% of the miners move on to the new fork".
Unlike project forks that restart the blockchain, such as Litecoin and Bytecoin, the fork that resulted from this hypothetical scenario will likely continue with the current blockchain. In the short term, many of the users with bitcoins in their wallet might not even reject such fork, as their wealth have seemingly doubled with their coins appearing in both the blockchain. However, in reality, the network security for both the branches have been severely weaken, making them more vulnerable to 51% attack, which may then result in downward spiral for bitcoiners to lose confident in the system.
Applying Prisoner's Dilemma, these two groups might not cooperate, even if it is in their best interests to do so (i.e. not to fork). The 0.7/0.8 fork issue was resolved quickly because majority of the people agreed to cooperate. But there will likely be more decisions to be made in the future, and we can't be sure how groups of people will react the next time.
The possibility of a future project fork, is like knowing that there is a bomb in the system but you have no ability to disarm.
If democracy is what made Bitcoin successful today, it will also be the same democracy that kills Bitcoin in the future.
Jump to: