Topic: Fork off - page 10. (Read 37776 times)

I read through some of it before my eyes glazed over completely.  The reason Gavin spanked your hiney is that at the end of the day all you seem to have is the same simplistic and tedious free-markets chant as rest of the crew who only know Ayn Rand juvi econo-porn and are incapable of moving outside of that box.  Alas, the physical world is more complicated (and the ideas are mostly broken to boot.)

Such a shame because Gavin is similarly confused about a lot of shit.  Thanks for all your work in documenting the game of blind-man's-buff anyway.

Occurs to me that a fair number of people own many 2010-2011-ish days worth of mining production.  High GINI here.  Or a guy (cough, cough) could steal (aka 'confiscate' if you are in law enforcement) a chunk from such a person and obtain some pretty heavy firepower especially since it is multiplied by that by 4 at the next halving (and we all know that transaction fees won't be dick.)  Firing up a pool for whatever disenchanted and powered-down rigs who might be interested and one could reward them relatively generously.  Enough to get 51% just on economics (not to mention the other hassles)?  I could see corner cases (such as everyone hating Bitcoin for some reason) but honestly probably not (so you win.)

That said, even just hosing things up for a while when everyone is counting on Bitcoin for their daily dose of smack and you could create some frightened and stressed out sheep like the guy I mentioned yesterday.  If an attack takes this form the miners could be mining for real (and collection normal fees which you could modestly subsidize) but in such a pattern designed to produce unhappy resonances and other nuisances.


I wasn't following it closely (and was a little disgusted) but as I recall, all lukedashjr did was mine for a while then quite and it had a devastating impact on whatever coin it was.  Hell, the same thing could happen to Bitcoin without any attack if the price drops steeply or suddenly (but that could never happen, right?) and/or a few large clusters were molested.  I'll call this an 'Invisible hand of Adam Smith lukedashjr Attack.'  Maybe the adjustment algorithms have been patched up to preclude this, but I doubt it...such things occurring proactively seem rare in Bitcoinland.

I did not check the URL. You implied that I somehow edited your post which I didn't. Wow, I am so impressed at your cleverness to look at my post history. Hey, this forum has changed rules about newbie posting, so I see no point in names anymore. I'll just use whatever name I feel like in protest.

Your right. Your wishy-washy statements like this are meaningless. Instead they should be mocked and derided. My mistake. I won't give you the benefit of a doubt next time.

+100

It's actually the other way around.

Also, the miners need it to be able to make any profit once the block reward is too low.

It should be no problem upping that limit as far as I know.
It must be doner and sooner than late is better.

Yes! The 1 MB limit was there to stop spam in the beginning of bitcoin history. It has no relevance any longer. Too bad it was designed so that it needs a hard fork, but no matter what, it is needed and expected. Those who are against it should understand that it is always up to the miners to decide.

This. It's a FACT that we need tons and tons of more transactions per second to absorb all that is expected if we want it to become mainstream. Why is this even a discussion?

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

I wonder what the future holds for Bitcoin if the community cannot reach consensus on these types of forks.
Will we have separate coins all the time? With the same name?

Central planning worries me. What happens if Gavin or someone else wants to change the supply of bitcoins?

So much vitriol in this thread.  Normally the consensus around here is that the free market is king and that natural selection means everything will either live or die on it's merits.  But as soon as the topic of a hard fork comes up, forcing the market to choose which one to use, suddenly it's all "there's only one valid choice and everyone else is wrong, so let's start throwing insults around".  

Agree, disagree, whatever.  Ultimately it doesn't matter because the market will decide.

It's going to be dogecoinesque all over again, weeee!1

Maybe bitcointalk will finally be able to get Gavin his own bobsleigh team!

I say, fork it, fork it real good!

Both Salt n Pepa to you hash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4mcBwmW0WE

I'm glad you liked it!

The same way major players in PoW system will be protecting their stake by competing in the mining space. It's not gonna be how to make more money (though that too occasionally), but rather how no to lose control of what they already have to their competitors (read: sanctions, political censorship and so on).

This answers Gavin's concern on how blockchain will be secured in the future - the same way land on planet Earth is "secured" today.

Alright let's take a closer look at the middle sentence.


Just look at it! Adorable.

https://twitter.com/TomReichhart/status/557629706317889539
@gavinandresen Thanks for pushing this. You are a hero.
re:
http://gavintech.blogspot.no/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
"... So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know. ..."

Hrm? Elaborate a bit on the practicalities of your cheap attack where one "must only make the reward higher" will you?



Luke-jr raped some altcoin once, that's a super cool story but that doesn't really relate to Bitcoin in any way other than being some lame anecdotal evidence for your nebulous argument.

I can say with complete honesty that block size considerations play a huge role in my decisions about what to hodl and what to sell, and larger block size equates in my mind to sharply decreased future-values (though some years out.)  I can also say that I am pretty sure I'm in the minority and that the balance of the pressure would probably be in the opposite direction.

I doubt that block size or the potential for sidechains have had much of anything to do with the price action over the last year.  But both are fun assertions for trolling.

an uncertainty of a hard fork (what's more a controversial one) must put some kind of pressure on bitcoin - that seems indisputable. the speculation part only covers only the amount of influence a hard fork  has on the market.