Topic: Hardfork = Mitosis - page 3. (Read 5736 times)

Ok.. you can be against whatever you randomly choose to be against. I know Core like people to get confused about the hard fork issue, as seen here.

I have taken your "I see" to mean you now understand hardforks are not inherently like mitosis? (they could be, but they certainly needn't be)
(i can only suppose you have deduced this because Core would not otherwise consider such a thing?)
And also a possibility you will have changed your mind on Franky's question you didn't answer?

You are quite likely just as confused about segwit?

I see, well I am still against hard forks, or at least let's not rush it. We will have segwit soon, and then we will see what will happen it the future with it.

Let's just sit back and observe.

Let the smart people work. Core devs are doing a good job by being conservative. Lets keep being conservative and after segwit and so on we can consider a +1mb increase.

segwit serialized blocksize=4mb
segwit=4mb blocksize increase but still only 1mb traditional transaction space

"real bitcoin" please stop trying to push the 'hardfork=bloat' bait and switch.. its so wrong on so many levels.
the only downside of a consensus change is controversy.

i hope you realise the same tactics needed to make a second chain survive a hard fork are the same changes needed on a soft fork.
people can IP ban any nodes that have upgraded and use the minority hashpower to make non segit blocks.

so softforks are just as controversial as hard forks if they choose to be
if you want to dream that soft forks are better because unupgraded nodes can continue to run after a soft fork. then your delusional again. they are rendered litenodes automatically because they no longer validate full data. no one should describe notes that dont validate as full nodes.

no controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or be left as no longer being a full node.
controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or block upgraded nodes and form a alt..

wake up and stop eating the spoonfed honey you have been treated to.

by the way answer the question i asked before
when luke JR releases CORE segwit 2mb will you finally accept you doomsday of "controversy" is over because the factions ALL have code, and no longer a one team vs another team

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#size-bump

Capacity increase =/= Block size increase.

The core roadmap doesnt really have a hardfork


https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#pre-segwit-fork

ok lets clear some terminology up
the blocksize is about a change in consensus rules..

a smart plan is that with a high node count and a high hash rate there is no controversy. and everyone moves over. and clients that dont move over stop receiving data, stop relaying and simply shut down. (no replay of transactions, sorry game over minority)

the premiss is at 75% miner flag, the warning bell is rung and people have to actively upgrade.. at 95% active nodes miners feel safe their blocks wont orphan and so the new consensus becomes active..

this is not a "altcoin 50-50" doomsday, but a simple change of consensus where 6000 total nodes become 5700 new consensus and 300 nodes shutdown. eventually back to 6000 when the laggers give up their protest against change.

.. now to create a altcoin/fork.. the minority group (in this case 300 nodes) need to start IP banning the 5700 nodes to ensure they dont cross contaminate the tx data. they also need to hash blocks.. which with bitcoin being such high difficulty means them 300 nodes are only getting 1 block every few hours and the unconfirmed tx's are piling up, causing them 300 nodes to need to rebroadcast their tx's with ever increasing fees to beat everyone else in the minority to be accepted into the next block.

also with a 1 block per couple hours. means instead of 2 weeks. the difficulty adjustment happens after a few months (2016 blocks) and that adjustment wont be a 900% drop either.. so dont expect to wait out for difficulty to drop.

ofcourse with such a minority. trying to find a merchant or service that is also using the minority would be a task in itself. so even in a altcoin survival scenario where 300 nodes pushed to keep their un-upgraded nodes alive by tweaking settings.. the cost of use, and ultimate usefulness of their alt would not last long. social choice including transaction headaches, costs and inability to do anything with it would make them move across to the main chain easy..

also some of the large miners may attack the minority chain by just using a quick spike in hashrate to make a new block thats empty. just to cause more issues for the minority having delays in confirmations

unlike ethereum that never have thousands of merchants or high difficulty, so the choices were never clear or defined..  bitcoins choices would be very visible and the changes and direction would happen very quickly.. with 95% making the choice even before its even activated..


in short..
bitcoin is not proposing an altcoin. nor a fork, but a consensus rule change..
its only the people creating controversy that will use the controversy to prevent it from being a smooth change, and instead being an altcoin by their actions to try creating an altcoin by ip banning and other aspects needed for a survival scenario..

in shorter version
screaming about controversy being the cause of a fork, yet be using controversy to set up a controversial hard fork by resisting change, instead of a smooth change of consensus, is just shooting the minority in the foot. however.. if there is no majority. there is no change

Who's logic?

My logic - hardforks are not inherently bad, and will be used for something at some point.
Or RealBitcoin's illogic - hardforks should never happen ever.
(mainly because he misunderstands the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum, and probably didn't realise Core want to hardfork in the future)

I understand your logic, but it seems that logic dosnt stand up in crypto world.  I just banked 2 ETH in to a paper wallet and sold 2 ETC for bitcoin which means i have gained something surly...... lol

RealBitcoin, do you still believe any of your generalised statements about "hardforks" here?

Or did you just mean non Core hardforks,
or just blocksize hardforks,
or just Altcoin hardforks.

When Core talk of a future hardfork to benefit segwit, is that ok?

"We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/

Link to roadmap,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

"The segwit design calls for a future bitcoinj compatible hardfork to further increase its efficiency--"

"Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners to produce larger blocks... we don't immediately need these proposals, but they will be critically important long term."

"at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough... moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them... In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."

There's gon' be a fork RealBitcoin, best prepare yourself. Your prime usefulness will be in calling it an altcoin. Encourage pre-fork holders to dump it. Keep this up as long as you can stand it.

What happens to lenders and investment services that have now 50% of your coins.

You lent 100 BTC away, but you only get back 100 BTC with halved value + interest, you lose 50% of your money.

Sure it would divide your money in half.. but your money is just halved in two different places? So wouldn't it make more sense it splits your money down the middle rather than making it seem like such a bad thing

How come Core is promising a hardfork?

I thought the users are in charge of deciding it? You all blame that core is responsible for all problems, but then you say that the users are in charge ,and now you say again that it's core. So please clarify who you are not satisfied with? Because therare 5500 nodes and many miners besides core devs out there.

Before this Bitfinex issue I d said: 18 month, what crappy late!

Now, I estimate a sharp draw back in adoption and not that big pressure on trx volume.

So thanx Bitifinex twice: nice cheap prices and give us time for scaling !!!

 

Not trying to keep you up at night but,
Core seem to be promising a hard fork at some point within 18 months, AA says a hard fork will happen. The miners are ready to hard fork.

The probability of a Bitcoin hard fork is about 1. Breaking ECDSA is quite a lot harder than that.
Mathematically, in a different universe.

Anyway, keep making this stuff up "RealBitcoin". Your in for a few sleepless nights.

As I already said above. Comparing gold with fisher price....

Dont confuse hardfork with splitting and both chains surviving. Hardfork is very necessay tool to fix issues with the coin, and hardly anyone expects 1 MB Bitcoin forewer - and you need hardfork for the change to fix this arbitrary choosen size in the past (without any research what size (and why) should be used back then and in the future). So the only issue is when to do the hardfork, and this is where the opinions (and most importantly interests) differs. But talking about hardfork should never happen is wrong, Bitcoin already had a hardfork so Im surprised your still using this coin.

Splitting chains in ethereum happened because it is easier (difficulty readjust much quicker), and a bailout is a big no for many in the crypto world. Would it be ethereum developers and 80% hashrate refused the bailout instead, it is big question if the forked bailout would survive so long with 20% miners and no developer support instead (I guess no because I hate bailouts, thats why my prefference to ETC if ethereum smart contracts even become usefull in future, as they are not safe now).

Ok so then you have your diversity.

Why are you blaming Core when you already have the diversity and the possibility of having different implementations.

Just go a head fork bitcoin and see how much support it gets...

Oh but you wont because now you blame Core again for monopoly and not having enough consensus to hardfork...

It's just circular logic you are using...


Moderate Probability = Inevitability.

So the probability must be very low, otherwise it will eventually happen (in the near future). It's not easy but it's possible, and that makes me uncomfortable

The probability of bitcoin hardfork should be the same as breaking ECDSA. That would make me sleep well at night.