Topic: Hardfork = Mitosis (Read 5736 times)

I heard it will only be activated when 95% of the miners agree. So it might never be activated in the future.

Segwit is coming to rescue the day, it will probably be here before the end of the year.

Hardfork = revitalization

The stagnation in bitcoin transaction growth is clear evidence the power has been grabbed long ago...

Control over 10 billion dollars is a pretty good power, that many wishes to have, but its best if nobody has it.

What power is there to grab and who is the current holder of such power?

Or are you full of shit?

Correct ETH has sheep nodes, who obey the developers without a second thought and push through any idiotic hardfork the developers so desire.

While the bitcoin nodes are more independent, cautious, and rational, who are skeptical about any powergrab the developers might push through. Older bitcoin developers did try powergrabs, but they were rejected. Bitcoin is more sovereign that is a crucial distinction.

Again

Comparing Bitcoin and ETH is not really helpful here. Just too different  and both too complex in all points like owner structure, setup, parameters ...

Just not possible to derrive much from each other - but very good for politics.

Ethereum hardforked in 1 week. That is the real joke, and nobody seemed to care about that, hence ETC was born as a thorn in their asses for this negligence.



It's 74.8% now but yes, BTC is worth more than all other coins combined. So many people could try to fork it, and they did (altcoins are forks too essentually) but none of them beat BTC so far.

I think the dominance will shrink later, since new innovating coins could come into existence, but I dont believe on a 1-1 basis any coin could even come close to beating BTC.


So later the crypto market cap could be say 200 billion $, of which 100 billion could be BTC and 1 billion for each succesful altcoin, but hardly any more.

lol thats your failing.
think long and hard. and beyond your current understanding.

screw it here is a hint.. mining pools are nodes too.
again mining pools and merchants all have nodes.

in that 95% majority, will contain merchants, and mining pools. taking XXmonths to get 95% majority after they developed tested and deployed to then show their desire.
and it would be just the careless USERS that dont need to be a full node for any critical reason who will be the 5% laggers/protesters.

it also must be added that part of deciding consensus activation is to treat pools as a separate second vote again BEFORE the grace period starts.
EG
nodes=semifinals (it only moves onto finals if the semifinals are happy with result)
miners=finals  (it only moves onto grace period if the finals are happy with result)
grace period= extra time

again semi finals wont happen in 1 day.. and finals wont happen in 1 day because it takes months just to get to those points.

i even explained this to you before, in a different topic, but you simply replied with your usual core devotion hat on and doomsday everything with false assumptions, all because you trust in your king of domination

Here you have it, a perfect example of what I was talking about:



You still think that the activation mechanisms are based on the percentage of nodes running the new version? So much about the demonstration of knowledge.

you do realise. that to achieve high majority.. (to even trigger the grace) is not going to happen in 2 days or a week. it can take months and months for "Businesses to successfully develop, test and deploy". (before a majority is achieved.

once high majority have "successfully developed, tested and deployed" then there is still some extra time added after that point for the 'lazy/laggers' to have some time.
this EXTRA time is called the grace period.

EG 5200 nodes... taking XXmonths to get 95% majority after they developed tested and deployed to then show their desire.
leaving 260 nodes not yet ready.
the grace period is then for those 260 to finish off their tests or just download the already coded releases others have already deployed.

here is the kicker.. them 260 nodes.. did you cry doomsday when node count went from ~6000->~5740 couple years ago. did you even care to ask why those 260 were no longer running. what about when it went from 5500 to the current ~5200 are you crying blue murder right now that businesses are failing and cant use bitcoin..

my point being
if you think that businesses are going to just sit on their hands for months and months and only start programming after the grace starts. then you have not understood why people want to be full validating node in the first place. (im laughing at your "behavioral analysis." claims)

those "businesses" will be the first to get a release running BEFORE the grace. infact they already are and have..
because it actually means something critical to them. the last 5% are usually people that dont critically need or care to be a full node, or are intentionally not doing anything as some form of protest

your whole message and majority of most posts in this debate(on multiple topics) do not give any:
analogies of the how code works
realistic and real knowledge of code
understanding of code

i however do give examples, stats, details,etc.. i only reply offtopic AFTER you 'poke the bear'
but it is funny that you poke the bear and then cry when the bear bites back.

as for the "People who have kept a close eye on your posts" i dont care about your small little flock of gmaxwell religious friends are talking about, yo can all circle each other pretending gmaxwell/adam back are your kings and saviours.. that has nothing to do with bitcoin code. but more so some off topic religious/political view of wanting to ruin bitcoins decentralization, within your little minds..

and i hope after 6 months of asking you, you are finally underway of learning some C++ to read a few lines of code.

EG
to understand the benefits of '2mb base 4mb weight' using the real 'consensus mechanism' without any '-oppose-fork' flags to ensure the upgrade happens within the consensus to avoid your fake doomsday cries. then everyone gets what they want.

have a nice day,

Exactly. The grace period should be 6 to 12 months IMO. What Gavin suggested with Classic is a joke (28 days). Businesses can't successfully develop, test and deploy in that time-frame. Even if they could, it would likely end up problematic due to it being rushed. The only way that it *may* work for e.g. <6 months if everyone was running non-custom versions of the software, which we know is not the case.

---

You know, what I find very unfortunate and saddening is the toxicity towards Segwit. I mean, it's a *wonderful* development that will enable Bitcoin to scale further and better. The usual fork supporters are very negative towards it, while they should be appreciative in the lines of (random generic statement) "Great development! Now we can and should plan a hard fork.". I don't participate in those subreddits, but I do read them for behavioral analysis.

I've seen argumentation using the fact that the Bitcoin 'dominance' percentage is at ~80%.

Yes i would only agree to a hardfork if it would be absolute life-death situation and they would give people enough time to prepare, but we know that there is no imminent danger to bitcoin.

So the only hardfork would be improvement/patch type of hardfork, and for that there is plenty of time, like announce it 1 year ahead and let the market and the community adjust.


But there is absolute no need for that currently, just look at the altcoins, all of them think they are superior to bitcoin in some way, but none of them come even close to bitcoin in market cap? How is this possible if they are so great.

So the market is choosing Bitcoin, and it would be foolish to go against the market, if a hardfork were to happen on bitcoin now, it would drop at least 80% in value in my opinion.

So even though all these patches and uppgrades sound attractive, the market doesnt want them, so there is no need for that.

---

Think of IPV4, nobody wants to change it because it would break the entire internet, instead they just roll in IPV6 which will slowly replace it. The same should apply to Bitcoin as well.

Now that we will have sidechains, and many apps built on it, it would be even harder to hardfork.


So if somebody wants to "hardfork" bitcoin, go copy the code, add your patches, and name it BITCOIN 2.0, and let's see how big a market can can you achieve. Judging by the altcoins today, probably not much.

That should be the only way to hardfork bitcoin, and many people failed by doing that. So the people who want to force nodes to uppgrade, are totalitarians, or just plain stupid people.

I prefer to avoid the usage of that unless there's appeal to authority or I have to defend myself. This just seems like a slimmer version of r/btc, where they're attacking someone on a daily basis.

Correct. In theory it was thought that the minor chain would quickly die out. Now we know that this doesn't necessarily have to be true (as demonstrated by ETC).

Well, if you're looking at the whole picture then I agree with you.

ETH seems like a joke when it comes to security nowadays. Seems like there's a lot of trouble waiting in their code.

Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).

And if they reject the new genes, they will become cancerous cells devouring the entire organism.

ETC has stolen away 100m dollar (+other intangible losses) from ETH, and caused it to plunge in price, ETC will forever remain a cancerous tumour of ETH, and wont go away until ETH itself dies.

They will both destroy eachother.

Now that new hardfork is on it's way, new cancerous cells will appear:

https://twitter.com/jeffehh/status/784318008592183298


ETH is metastasizing very quickly, better bring it to chemotherapy or it will die very fast...

I've been making that point for almost a year now but nobody listens.

First they say that a hardfork is no big deal, it just happens and then everyone will jump on to the new one. Then they say that maybe the blockchain can split in 2, but the old one will be quickly absorbed into the new one.

Then ETC is alive for almost 6 months now... How quickly will that old blockchain be absorbed exactly?

---

It's pointless to argue with irrational people, these people have no sense of reality whatsoever. Even if you look at politics, when has any party had 100% approval rating, it's impossible. Once you create an opposition, people will flow to it, automatically like Osmosis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis

It's this natural behaviour of things that I illustrate in this thread, whether you compare blockchains to cells, it is always the same. Once you break something, you cannot put it back together and glue it, it will never be the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

So the only option is to never break it.

---

And yes look at ETH, looks like it will be hardforked again:  

https://twitter.com/jeffehh/status/784318008592183298


This is so hilarious, I warned you people, once you create a hardfork, it will be a permanent perpetual hardfork, it wont be just a 1 time solution, it will be abused every single time.

It's like the One Ring, once you put it on, there is no turning back, it will be abused every single time possible.

Next thing you know they will start hardforking your money out of your wallet, because you might be suspected by someone, something, somewhere, sometime....

Seriously, people need to hold their ground, and dont give in to bullshit.

It were would not be a fallacy, if the information was rather correct or I was the point of the discussion (which I'm not).

This is also incorrect. I don't see any statistical analysis backing up these claims.

You're being fed false information then. I'm not sure what kind of threads you've been reading, but a fair amount of people chose to ignore them (most of the time) for a very good reason.

---

That said, this was also unnecessary and off-topic. You know somebody has a weak standing ground if they have to include others every time they attempt to make an argument. I can't stress this enough as this quite bad for any thread. Unless you have any valid arguments for a hard fork here, please stop wasting everyone's time.

Oh please, every damn sentence on this forum is an ad hominem to you.  Every time you discuss larger blocksizes, you say 2mb would be a disaster and discard any notions to the contrary.  It's neither an insult nor a personal attack to accurately describe the behaviour you demonstrate on a frequent basis. 



I've heard more valid points from him than I have from you.