Topic: Fork: Will this be possible? (Read 1669 times)

Changing BTC is not the same as killing it, Bitcoin is meant to change. In the same way that people also change over time, adapting to our environments, learning from our mistakes. Growing and becoming better people over time. In the same way Bitcoin needs to change in order to grow up. Just because I have changed over the last decade does not mean I am a different person, I am the same person, I have just made the choice to improve my self and I am better for it. Bitcoin in many ways is just like this, embrace change, it is the only constant in the universe.

Changing BTC as it is now, it means its dead. Leaving as it is now, it means dead too. I am not sure how BTC can survive in these circumstances.

I see many PRO and AGAINST fork.

In the case of the blocks becoming full however it would need to change in order to stay the same, since fees becoming prohibitively expensive and transactions becoming unreliable would not be the Bitcoin we are used to, if we want Bitcoin to remain the same we need to change it, furthermore improvement does imply change.

Changed or be developed into something better? Change is different from improve.

going by logic, it should be something that change the limit based on the request of the network, if we suddenly need 2 MB, the limit in the code will be changed to 2mb etc...

it should be not so hard to deploy, with a properly algorith, there hardest thing than this in programming

It isn't that easy to implement, although the pseudo code exists. Also, the core devs disagree on whether to use a dynamic limit, fixed schedule increasing limit, or something else completely. Each of the options have its own drawbacks, it is just a matter of which drawbacks to accept and which to not.

I still don't understand the dynamic limit thing. It sounds too good to be true. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now. Im sure there must be really serious drawbacks for Gmaxwell and co to not embrace it. There must be something that im missing because im not technically versed enough on this. Anyone knows why the dynamic limit isn't a thing yet?

i'm not in favor of xt, i'm in favor of everything that can help bitcoin to grow, so if the limit has to be removed, and i repeat only the limit, nothing else, then it should be done sooner or later

actually i'm in favor of the dynamic limit, which is in bip 103 if i'm right

XT does not track your location and Bitcoin is not private anyway. You can also support BIP101 without supporting XT. Keep in mind that under the BIP101 schedule the blocksize will only surpass thirty two megabyte at least eight years after the fork, which can also be curtailed using a soft fork in the future if deemed necessary, technology also does improve over time after all as well.

What we need is a third alternative to these two extreme positions of Core and XT. An implementation that strikes a middle ground between these two extremes will be more likely to achieve consensus. Presently however it is still a binary choice between these two extremes, therefore I choose the lesser of two evils by supporting BIP101 until a better alternative is implemented.

I think that you misunderstand, to fork is Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed to fork in this way. If Bitcoin never forks it will die, this was always the intended design in terms of how we resolve disagreements. A blockchain fork is not the same as an altcoin, since it contains the original genesis block while maintaining the old distribution simultaneously.

I think that we should accept the reality that Bitcoin will split in the future, even if it is not because of the current blocksize debate. I think this is inevitable and off political necessity.

There is a beauty to this solution however in the way that it prevents the tyranny of the majority, and in the way that this maintains the pure concepts of freedom and volunteerism. If we do not think that this is Bitcoin then maybe our understanding of Bitcoin has been wrong. I think that this blocksize debate has been very informative in teaching us the true nature of Bitcoin politics.

It is the economic majority that rules Bitcoin, not some absolutist conception of consensus. If the economic majority becomes split then Bitcoin itself will split, since Bitcoin reflects the will of its participants.

However I do not think this will necessarily happen with the block size debate since I do think that if either Core or XT comprises their position or a third alternative is implemented then we should be able to reach a super majority for consensus, essentially allowing us to increase the blocksize without splitting Bitcoin.

nope, it won't be because the Bitcoin XT is making much more than 32 mb. For example, it's tracking your location. How is it with the so called BTC privacy in this case?

I am sure that XT will be an Altcoin.

it's not like something that remove the limit, which was originally the case with bitcoin, when it was first released, can change bitcoin completely

it's a simple value in the code, don't get overboard with your arguments, nothing will change, it will be always the same old bitcoin, with its original 32mb limit

If fork will happen, BTC will be gone. There won't be any BTC just an Altcoin.
As I can see, BTC will be gone if the fork is not made too.

I think it is highly likely that the fork will happen, the blocksize does need to be increased after all. I do not mean to be overly dramatic but if the blocksize is not increased then Bitcoin has no future.

Fortunately most people do agree with this therefore I think that the fork will happen, especially once blocks start to fill up, the economic pressure will increase and Bitcoin will need to change in order to stay the same. Incentives will most likely align in the near future to allow this to happen.

True but very unlikely

Bitcoin needs to change in order to stay the same.

Anyway, it's odd. Without new development, BTC will die because it's so limited. With new development, Bitcoin will die anyway because it won't be BTC anymore

Yeah the idea of Bitcoin being hijacked is ridiculous, it certainly must stem from a lack of understanding of Bitcoin. The only way to "hijack" Bitcoin would be to circumvent the consensus mechanism.

Ironically the only way to circumvent the consensus mechanism would be to forcefully oppose alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol.

Well, you should remember that Gavin is a BTC VIP. All the BTC media says that he is the best developer. )))
So, did he want to highjack BTC?

The blocksize needs to be increased, most people can agree with this. increasing the blocksize requires a hard fork. Regardless whether it is implemented in XT or Core.

It will not be possible to spend coins from chain A on chain B after the hard fork event. Whether we will have multiple surviving chains with the original genesis block will depend on how much support people give to these alternatives.

We should embrace the concept of hard forking away from the core developer team as an extension of the ethos of volunteerism and freedom. Since it is this mechanism that helps to prevent the centralization of power within a Core development team.

I would not discount XT just yet, miners are smart, they would not support a controversial fork without the support of the economic majority. If the blocks did become consistently full it would lead to transactions being rendered unreliable while also increasing the transaction cost, over the long term with increased adoption this would even lead to transactions becoming prohibitively expensive for most people. This scenario would cause economic pressure to increase the blocksize whether it be through Core, XT or possibly another alternative implementation. Since it is the economic majority that rules Bitcoin not the Core development team after all.