Topic: Hardfork = Mitosis - page 4. (Read 5736 times)

im not even sure where "realbitcoin" is even getting such random numbers like 10mb from..
if he wants to talk about ethereum or his other altcoin fascinations.. he can stick to the altcoin section

So for the next 20 weeks there have to be brave 10% of miners spending electricity to mine probably worthless coin - please try it yourselves spending electricity for 10% of Bitcoin hashrate (how many MWh ?) and getting basicaly coins worth nothing.

And for the next 20 weeks users going to wait in average almost two hours for each confirmation, sometimes half a day, and if lucky under one hour! There would be no congestion with 10mb blocks, but very long confirmation times for about third of a year.

Its hard to imagine for the first 20 weeks the price of these newly mined coins going to be the same as today Bitcoin price so 10% of miners can continue mining it without burning a lot of their money for the electricity.

what a silly fool. having a different implementation EG bitcoin ruby, bitcoinj, bitcoinxt bitcoinBU bitcoincore.. are not "altcoins".
stop trying to presume anything not coded by non blockstream employees must be an altcoin.

the truth is that all bitcoin implementations are actually handling bitcoin data..
dont confuse implementations by other groups with fork proposals.

core AKA blockstream should not have any decision making power to restrict the communities desires. and if you think that "core" has been the guys that have made bitcoin a $10bill industry then you are so wrong..
the current coders you deem as the "core" devs were not even around a few years ago. so please stop trying to make them out as the inventors or the masters of the crypto universe.

now

to add details to rizzlarolla point.. because i think "realbitcoin"(the NXT/sidechain fanboy) is missing the whole point that has been raised a few times

there are 6000 bitcoin nodes.. so if "realbitcoin" thinks the minority chain will retain 0.0001% users.. thats not even 1 node..
even if "realbitcoins" under 0.000x% is a funnier number that helps show forks are not dangerous (slapping himself in his own face about controversy risks, using his own words) lets atleast stick with facts,
and so truth is.....
initially if a fork happens it will happen at 90%.. meaning 5400 have already converted to the new code for the fork to be acceptable to go live..
leaving 600 nodes on the old (now minority chain)


the reason for this is that miners will flag their blocks and when it hits 75%, that is the warning bell to get people to realise its time to move over.. then miners will wait until there are an acceptable amount of nodes to ensure their blocks wont get orphaned to actually start making those new blocks, knowing they will be accepted and their rewards are spendable..

so presuming there are now 600 nodes on a minority chain due to a fork happening, that minority chain will only getting 1 block every 2 and a half hours* and soon they would get peed off with having to rebroadcast their transactions, to try keeping them in the mempools. for these reasons:
1. the 5400 wont retransmit the transaction because technically its already confirmed in the majority chain.
2. the minority chain will have to start IP banning 5400 nodes to try to find a successful route to a minority pool.
3. the mempool of the old nodes/pools are full of ALL transactions. 2500tx every 10 minutes = upto 40,000tx with only a gap of 2500 in a block
4. every time those 37,500 tx that we not added to the minority chain each 2.5 hours* have to go through the headache of rebroadcasting again with a higher fee..

this would cause merchants WITHIN HOURS would see the delays, the increasing tx fee costs and the headaches so they will switch..
leaving only a few laggers circle jerking themselves with coins that are costly to move, slow to move and unable to buy real world things with..
it would take MONTHS for the difficulty to adjust on the minority chain, but hours for users to see the problems and move away from it. in short killing off the minority chain.

this is why bitcoin is different.. bitcoin has real world uses and real decisions will be made in hours.. ethereum however is just a sandbox with no real world infrastructure, thus ethereums choices are not as apparent and people are just juggling the vapour of 2 coins that both do nothing so both have no positive choices of use to cause any fast decisions

*i say 2.5 hours(15 blocks) instead of 9 blocks, because 10% hashpower mathematics works differently in reality

Your still just making all this stuff up, based on your misunderstanding that Eth works in any way like Bitcoin. It doesn't.
Your first line makes no sense whatever.
Users are not split. Core only have 1mb blocks, 0.0001% of say 10,000,000 bitcoin users is 10 people initially using your chain?

so when I ask, "Bitcoin difficulty is not like Ethereum difficulty. Please stop making out it is, or explain how."
Your explanation is "by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain."

Some kind of magical difficulty setting? It readjusts "when users catch on"


Your trolling here is built on gossip, and BS stuff you made up.

The number of users split too not just the network, a  forked chain with 10% hash power (but with say 10mb blocks) will be used by 0.0001% of bitcoin users, initially? So it wont be congested.

And by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain. It immediately gets added to some lower profile exchanges, then by greed, the big ones add it too, it can become standalone pretty fast,and then we are fucked.

Stop ignoring the fatal threats that a hardfork brings to bitcoin, there is a serious issue with hardfork, it's not just gossip or trolling.

What is bad?
What companies? use what? stay away from what?

Edit. Actually... Don't bother.

That's bad for the reputation of crypto.
Many companies that intended to use it, certainly will stay away from it.

You have been informed, but not addressed the fact, that Bitcoin is not like Ethereum.
Current Bitcoin difficulty will kill off any chain with 10% hash power.

Unlike Eth, a Bitcoin chain with 10% hash will be unusable, and unsustainable, for a long period of time.
When a 1mb block is mined on your 10% chain, every hour or two or three, for months on end, very few users will be able to move any coins.

Just imagine the size of the Core dynamic fee!, the mempool congestion, the spam, the endlessness of delays.
(ok, I admit, that sounds like the current Core road map anyway, but think again. it's even worse!)

Bitcoin difficulty is not like Ethereum difficulty.
Please stop making out it is, or explain how.

They do have but nobody takes them seriously. Plus if you want 1000000 different versions of bitcoin, go ahead, but dont cry when nobody invests in your altcoin.

There is a reason why bitcoin is 10 billion $, and not 10 cents. If you break the unity, you break the market cap, and many people would not like that.


Wait a few more months to see how the ETC fiasco settles down, it's too early to celebrate yet...

Very good points here. So bitcoin's 'Slow' difficulty adjustment is superior and key for saver forks.

Very funny that again alt coins are good playground and help bitcoin to better understand those dynamics.

Anything else preventing from HF, still?

As stated,


Even with 13% hash power on your 2nd chain, you will only mine LESS than 1 block per hour. (maybe 2 blocks in 3 hours)
The 1st chain will mine NEARLY 5.5 blocks per hour.

Your 2nd chain, at 1mb, will confirm about 1500 median transactions per hour.
The 1st chain, presumably with a block size increase, will be able to confirm somewhere near 20 times that. 30,000 transactions per hour.

It will be months and months before difficulty STARTS to come down on your chain.
Difficulty on the 1st chain will be back to full speed in about 2 weeks. (after loosing half a block an hour, but presumably confirming more transactions in bigger blocks)

There will never be 100% willing consensus.
The outcome above is what forces the last few laggards to concede.

Do not confuse Ethereum with Bitcoin, RealcluelessBitcoin.

the arguement is about programming .. and you have lost every point you have tried to raise in regards to programming. so u have tried to play the political factions card. which.. when lukeJR releases a implementation, settles the political argument too..

so im glad ur atleast willing to see the light to finally accept programming instead of trying to continue pushing the politics to push centralized control.

bitcoin should have never been about politics (dev control) anyone and everyone should have equal power, equal chance and equal freedom to make their wn implementation. so stop the political game when bitcoin core devs finally get back on the same playing field by having a implementation that other dev groups already have..

then its a free and open choice

Except if both chains continue, then it will be fucked, merchants will have to double their expenses and everything will go up in price.

So maybe the inflation aspect would really halve bitcoin's value.

Imagine if you have 1000 $ of BTC loaned out, and then you get only 500 $ of BTC back. How would that make you feel?

I agree there will be selling, but there will also be buying.  This will make for a strong return.  It is kind of like hitting a pothole.  The price will go down and then when everyone realizes that the whole panic i was for no reason, they will get back in.  I will be buying and selling the day this happens.

Minus the shock from the panic.

Just like with stock splits, there almost always goes down some.

Most people on bitcoinocracy have voted that they will sell their coins in hardfork, which means that we could see big drop in price.

That is what I was thinking would happen.  If the chains would split, you would generally have the one half of the original amount on each of the two halves which would equal what you originally started out with.

Release the code. But then again the issue is more of a logical/political issue not a programming one.

Bitcoin should not descend into idiocracy, so some standards have to be kept. I dont know why you bash constantly the bitcoin core team because they have made bitcoin what it is today 10 billion $.

If bitcoin were to descend into idiocracy, then let the 60 IQ monkeys program the bitcoin/bitcoin repository and see how well that will work out.

In fact, go get a team of janitors and start building your BTC 2.0, I will be curious of your results.

by devs not releasing code to allow open choice for the entire population to choose features, and twist it into a dictatorship of stay with BS(core) and we will push you over to sidechains because bitcoin is too expensive to use.. or move away from BS)core) and be afraid of (imaginary) doomsdays.. will i agree never get 100% consensus..

however. releasing the code which luke JR (part of BS and core) should be doing soon will atleast stop debates about dictating "factions" and be purely about code/features. allowing for more true open and free choice of consensus..

so "realbitcoin".. are you going to throw lukeJR under the REKT bus when he solves the controversy? or accept it and resign to the fact that the "factions controversy is finally over

Ethereum classic is at 13% mining capacity now.

So now my 50-50% equilibrium theory doesnt sound so stupid after all? Stupid optimistic sheeps!


How stupid can people be for to think that 1 chain can totally absorb the other without dissent? There can never be 100% consensus, it is impossible.

That is why a hardfork should never happen in bitcoin.

No. Let's just agree you are clueless.

Evidence? Read this thread.