Topic: does mircea popescu really have the power to decide if a hardfork happens? (Read 1345 times)

We're already seeing a shocking loss of bitcoin dominance from 95% to 40%... If the big blockers fork off and leave "bitcoin" entirely in the hands of Core/Blockstream/dumb miners/trolls, then this will accelerate, collapsing even further under the weight of its its own stupidity.

Which is why I said that the futures are an advance of what would happen if Roger and Jihad were to actually go thought with it and hardfork.

Most likely miners never wanted anything that would lower fees, so the only effective idiot is you or anyone defending whatever hardfork.

Umm... you do know that BTU has nothing to do with Bitcoin Unlimited, right? It is merely an intentionally crippled craptoken created so useless idiots would have something to post to try to tarnish Bitcoin Unlimited.

For the metric which matters -- hashpower as measured by block solutions -- BU hanging solid on 40%.

Like a boss.

Buggy Unlimited is already:

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-unlimited/

....

fool
1. bu is not activated nor will ever activate unless there is consensus.. there is no BU coin..
2. if there is a proper consensus fork. then the majority survives..(because consensus wins).. so the minority will lose their value for holding onto their minority.
3. your not realising the barrycoin is the same BScoin as blockstreams segwitcoin... barry and blockstream are together.. its all bait and switch divide and conquer techniques just to try getting segwit activated sooner rather than later by pretending its 'options/free choice' when really its just a new bridge that leads to the same highway

Buggy Unlimited is already:

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-unlimited/

It's literally out of the picture. The miners just mine it to not resolve the situation and keep stacking up big fees.

If someone is stupid enough to hardfork, they will lose money if they sell their coins for BarryCoin, BuggyCoin, or WhateverthefuckCoin.

core has economic power?

last thing i read is that the exchanges would accept and trade both coins of any split that may occur.. so the 'economic' power is equal.

as i said in last post its more complex.
for instance if the BScartel only allowed their portfolio of exchanges to only allow deposits and withdrawals of segwit(AKA BScoin) .. THEN core would have economic power. but by exchanges allowing all forks to be traded. the ecomonic power is equalised

as for core having node power.. as of today cores nodes are empty flagging segwit without even having a node ready to make a segwit tx on the main net. (that will come as a later release after activation) so technically core has zero node power in true support of segwit. its just meaningless hand waving right now with promises of a proper version release after activation.

if you think that segwit tx's are going to occur overnight after activation. think again. even litecoin hasnt bothered to even get the segwit supporting pools to use segwit tx's. let alone the wider community..

all in all.. nothing is set in stone.. whether its
november-soft-segwit
august-hard-segwit
segwit-and-2mb-lagacy
1mb-legacy
dynamic-legacy

its still all up in the air, and going to be a clusterf**k of orphans for everyone.

BU has the hashrate, core has the economic power, or atleast, more than BU. If core side dumps bitcoin BU, they will still have to convince BU miners to mine on their chain, because let's face it, 3-5 chinese guys control most of the hashrate. And BU obviously want BU side to succeed, which means, core will lose even with the most economic power because they won't have enough mining power.

Multiple chains can survive regardless of dumping.

Whales can dump at any price, they can even sell them for a penny.... and someone will be buying.  The cheaper they sell, the more coins interested whales on the other side will accumulate.  It will be chaos for a short time and then the market will continue finding value.

the miners can attempt to hardfork, but AFTER the split happens, these whales will recieve their billions worth of BTC on both chains

if we agree on the fundamental principle of "hashrate follows price", and whales coordinate a massive dump to crush whichever chain they don't like, then how is it up entirely up to the miners? ultimately it's the whales that are deciding what chain survives.
 

omg man..too funny.

no.  its entirely up to the miners.  

VII. The miners decide.


No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned : while one's a scammer that I humiliatingly defeated in the past whereas the other a scammer that I humiliatingly defeat in the future, this makes no difference for Bitcoin. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions on #bitcoin-assets. Consider this terse explanation from March. 2013.



The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviourii, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the Bitcoin chain are accepted as valid on both Bitcoin and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by Bitcoin. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in Bitcoin, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.




i. By which really what's usually contemplated is, "pool masters will hijack the miners pointing at their pools, because they really wish to end up like BTCGuild/ 50 BTC ; that <5% of an entity once around 48% is such a tempting market share."
ii. As Peter Todd aptly points out, the alleged hard fork in Bitcoin's past wasn't a hard fork, but simply nondeterministic behaviour, resulting in two chains which both and roughly to the same degree validated.

i have been reading on this lately as some people claim that he and his group has enough bitcoins (up to billion+) to decide to outcome of any split, i assume the method would be to dump their coins on the market to crush the fork, kill the hashrate and thus resolve the conflict forcing miners to come back to legacy chain

i wrote a post here

since people have short attention spams and dont like to read, i'll keep this one shorter and hopefully someone checks out the other thread for more detailed explanation

i would like to know, if he and his group have enough power to influence bitcoin so much.  has he signed addresses that prove he is that wealthy?  how do we know for a fact?

devs seem to take the time to ask about their opinion so i assume they have tons, but i haven't seen any evidence.

a good read to put you in context:

http://thestringpuller.com/2016/06/bitcoin-wont-hardfork-any-time-soon/



did satoshi have in mind and predicted that this sort of whale groups acting as keepers or guardians of bitcoin would arise to make it immutable?

isn't it unavoidable that this concentration of power would have happened?  did he predict that this concentration of power would be in the hands of "bitcoin fundamentalists" that wouldn't allow any changes? or this just happened by chance?  could a group like this compromised of people with other agendas have arised? do they exist and we don't know?

is this good? bad?  a single point of failure? centralizing? what is this?  can they really stop hardforks and even dictate the conditions at will?

what does this mean for bitcoin in the big picture?

omg man..too funny.

no.  its entirely up to the miners.