Topic: Forks are highly important (Read 2191 times)

In some ways it is. I used to think that the hard fork should be avoided totally. But now, with the big blockers pushing for it in a meaningful way, I would say go ahead. I will follow Roger Ver and play it safe by converting some Bitcoins into Dash or something "safer" than BTC. If BU starts getting 50% of the miners' support, that is when I start converting.

A fork isn't good. Bitcoin has the power and is the main currency today because it's a integrated currency, many persons trust it and support it. If there is a fork the community support will split also and we will have two weak currencies, bitcoin won't exist anymore.
It's easy for newbies to start investing in crypto currency, because everybody knows bitcoin always worth, with a fork the newbies will get lost and it will make them put away from this.

Yeah the capital grew in a short after the fork being made as the primary focus within the network. Also the mining and block generation were quite good with fork for ETH. The same cannot be expected with bitcoin as there is several correlation between these two same as that we see between hard fork and BU.

what they should've done is push for one straightforward increase of the block size. no extra crap, just that. the extra complexity on top of possible contention was a crazy move.

it's an honest upgrade. if people wanted it then it would happen. the small blockers would see that the world hadn't ended, core would maybe cut down on the hubris and some extra time would be bought after everyone had learnt something.

Yeah doing the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited is very risky. But they are welcome to split the chain if they want. I know one person who is probably very excited with the fork just as he was excited with the creation of the DAO in Ethereum. Some of you know who he is. I will also not be amazed if he came up with the BU exploit.

Why am I not surprised? I've seen this many times over mainly due to MBA programmers touching non-trivial code.

The code seems to work? Ship it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

how about this for starters? a bug that's been in the code for over a year. compare the node count compared to a few hours ago. you want to entrust the entire bitcoin system to a team that allows this to happen?

You could sure argue for it. My opinion on it is, why not? Is it not what they are trying to do anyway?


Sometimes no. The emergence Ethereum classic is the perfect example. I am sure there will still be enough Core supporters to make it run in parallel with any fork.


Or it could split into 2.

Is everyone in agreement that BU well be an alt-coin if they go forward with this hard-fork?

And after the BU losers fork off will Sigwit have enough support to be enabled?

Yup, we do not need anything very much. But the main thing we need is how can we survive wallet from hacker attacks, because if we just focus on the use of the software then we get only an imperfect information. So, to be able to do something good then we should get to know more about these things in order to get the maximum results and profitable
 

Another outcome is if there is an even 50/50 split and both forms continue on with their own followers. Not everyone needs to have a vanilla bitcoin. Maybe it's time for some mint chip swirl.

The real question is if/when the Hard-Fork happens
What Fork of Bitcoin do we base all the alt-coin prices upon until the network breaks the impasse.

The only way that would be resolved is if some smart politician or hero of the network came in and decided to basically rule the world and dictate the future of Bitcoin in a way that cannot be refused.

Unfortunately we have consensus instead 

I ask myself: would there be a fork if money wasn't involved?

The answer to that, seems to be: no.

Forks done for profiteering or political purposes could be illegitimate.

I wonder sometimes if many of the bitcoin forks are motivated by greed.

The same with all these people coming out claiming to be Satoshi.

are you saying that core are independent.. and that those non BU (but do "99% copying-pasting" and surviving off each other) is not the same. (EG matt corallo has his own repo, luke JR has his own repo. as do many others... are they all bad gys for having their own repo.. including the pools
are you saying that having a repo of your own is the problem because all you care about is core because of its management
are you saying you trust core because its not independent because they only want to work with blockstream devs.
are you saying that no one should take the core code and make tweaks. and instead have to beg blockstream for something
are you saying that if a core release has not been completely rewritten and only adjusted slightly. that suddenly its an altcoin(eventhough it runs on bitcoins mainnet as other implementations do)
are you saying that independent devs cannot do anything unless gmaxwell is involved and where it has to have gmaxwells wishes complied with.

---

personally i think pruning is stupid. once pruned you cant be part of the full node syncing mechanism.
you might aswell just run a litenode.
allowing a node to be no witness and pruned should be treated as third tier nodes and not categorised as a full node.

i can think of many things core have not done. or even things core have done that have caused big issues (sipa's 2013 leveldb mega orphan event)
devs are not perfect.

and only code matters.
people should decide what node to use on the abilities and features the code allows or doesnt allow.
in my eyes segwit is an empty gesture of half promises that opens up new attack vectors

Create 2 different addresses and put them up one for SW and one for BU, if Satoshi sends 0.01 to any of the addresses using bitcoins mined in first 10K blocks for everyone to see and then decide which side they want to be or if not then it means either he is dead or doesn't give a da*n about bitcoin and it's future along with the community.
So I'd like to propose a hard fork where Satoshi's coins are no longer valid and excluded from blockchain, which one is it? you either care enough to step in for the continues success of bitcoin or you are dead, in any scenario no use for almost a million coin sitting idle eating dust.

Who's gonna be the Robbin Hood of crypto and does what I suggested?

Not every fork, clean and safe forks are paramount and that's what we need for Bitcoin and not just any fork that will render it vulnerable to attacks.

So you are saying you trust a bunch of idiots that survive off copy-pasting 99% of Core's hard work, then everytime they introduce something they somehow always manage to fuck up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5z47f3/it_looks_like_chinabu_developers_forgot_to_add/

Good luck, can't wait to dump BUC in poloniex to get double BTC for free.

fork is always happened when two miners find a valid hash within a short space of time. A one block fork usually takes a week, whilst 2 block fork happens rarely.
Ethereum has get around the issue by having the ghost protocol which rewards uncle blocks only. blocks that are valid solutions but not included in the blockchain itself.

Current signalling rate over last 1000 blocks:

BU: 30.6%
Segwit: 27,4%
8MB: 6.5%

So currently only 35.5% not signalling a preference.

Note: Antpool is not yet signalling on all blocks.

1. jihan only manages 15% and of that 15% not all of it is actually his.
2. your forgetting the ~50% undecided either way
.. so trying to blame a few small numbers as the reason why segwit is only achieving 26% is a laugh.(segwit is at 26% not 85%)
3. core CHOSE to avoid node support first then pool support second by going soft. dont blame who core allowed to vote. blame core for making them the only voters.
.. because smart pools wont activate /flag unless they know that the nodes can cope/accept the changes. so even without official vote, pools will wait for node acceptability(to avoid orphans and ensure that people accept their version of blocks to atleast spend the rewards)
.. thus core have literally shot themselves in the foot thinking they can get 100% dominance without REAL full network consent by going soft.
4. if core done a node first pool second. whereby a OVER say 75%-95% nodecount triggers a pool vote. the pools would have been more confident.

but
5. even if you think its just about votes. you need to remember WHY they vote. segwit is not perfect, core devs are not gods, they are human and can come and go..

..what CODE is best for the long term survival of bitcoin for generations to come mean more then some temporary gesture that is meaningless in a few years.