Topic: Hardfork = Mitosis - page 6. (Read 5736 times)

Lmao true. This guy lives here to shitpost about blockstream and core devs, and also to give us a lesson in how to scale decentralized networks. If only he spent all that time actually coding instead of talking about it, maybe he would have any relevance, but he doesn't that's why Core devs are the best and keep doing all the hard work while slackers complain.

wont be long now. i can hear the rustling in the wind of the "smallbrainers" (i liked your nickname for them) preparing a REKT campaign against LukeJr because he is going to do a bitcoin-core implementation with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;

i guess its nearing the time the "small brainers" decide that the controversy is over because there will also be a bitcoin-core available for 2mb blocks. if not, they will just keep on crying until they decay on the minority chain in a short period if consensus is reached.

Franky does a really good job here. We defnetely need more Frankys (unlimited?) here but I fear most are gone to r/btc or just feel its game over and maybe wait till smallbrainers and streamedthinkers gone rekt....

franky1, malignant as ever...

what a dismal job he has, posting all this drivel - i think it's driven him mad, actually

i was bemused for a while, but now his deranged rantings are wretched to witness

lets play the mitosis game

mitosis is natural growth. what is suppose to happen is new cells grow and the old ones die off naturally.

much like the minority chain dies off naturally due to orphans, delays and tx fee rises making it useless very quickly.

however treating new cells like cancer and trying to kill them off to keep the old cells alive is going to leave you with decaying cells that cannot function properly, slower to metabolize energy and cannot grow.

the natural thing to do is let it grow and allow the old cell to die naturally.. rather then trying to use propaganda chemo to kill new cells and try keeping the decaying old cells alive

the op has lost all the arguments about bloat.
the op has lost all the arguments about data centres
the op has lost all the arguments about any other doomsday..

so in that very last ditch attempt he is trying to say hard fork controversy is bad and keeping a minority fork alive is bad..

so what is his solution..
create controversy by trying to get people to stick with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;

and do what he can to try keeping blockstreams controversy alive

does he not yet realise that people can actually download the code for 2mb block implementations for the last few months
does he not realise that people can review the code
does he not realise that people are running the code on real bitcoin data.

but segwit is still only playing around with altcoins, (yes segnet and testnet are altcoins)

if majority consensus is reached to expand to MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;

by the minority avoiding MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; it will create the controversy fork rather than just a expansion/growth for all
(basically shooting themselves in the foot, feeling the pain they cause themselves)
by trying to sway people to stick with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000; no matter what.. will cause the users of it to be left waiting many many blocks, having to pay huge fees and repeatedly have to rebroadcast their tx in the hope of getting it into a 1mb block

ETH just had a HF, and ETH Classic is still alive, but ETH's value has not halved. ( not yet anyway )

let's keep watching...

Consensus is nonsense, one man's  profit is another man's loss. Therefore nobody should have power.

If you have 1000BTC and everyone in the network except you agree's to divide that amongst the others. Would you like that? It would be 99.99999999% consensus, yet it would probably ruin your financial status.

Mob rule is evil.

A funny comparison indeed. It's pretty clear that a controversial hardfork is a very bad idea and will do great damage to Bitcoin. However I'd argue that the value of the coins of each chain is not halved, the value greatly depends on the support each chain has. However the outlook is clearly negative.

In my view, a hardfork without broad consensus could really mean the end of Bitcoin, because it will divide the community and lead to a loss of trust. If important properties of the protocol are changed without consensus, users might feel that their funds are no longer safe with Bitcoin. A controversial hardfork also results in a split-up of developers, so there will be fewer developers working on each chain.

The negative effects of a controversial hardfork will be the greater the closer the competing chains are at 50% support. Two competing chains with almost equal support are much worse than one chain significantly outmatching the other, because in the latter scenario it is still possible that the less supported fork vanishes later, because it fails to generate sufficient momentum.

ya.ya.yo!

But you are a good troll that immediately posts in threads that mention one or more of the following keywords: "blockstream" , "hardfork" , "classic" , "core" , "blocksize" , "scaling" , "segwit".

Do you have keyword alerts sent to your phone everytime these keywords are mentioned on the forum?

Because you are pretty much always first or second to reply in such threads

There is literally no thread about blocksize debate that you havent posted in, and you are always in the first page 2nd or 3rd poster.

i find the OP funny..

he was a NXT fanboy, categorizing his crappy alt desire as bitcoin 2.0 (that was funny)
he also in this topic admits he doesnt even run a full node before today..

the OP should be a comedian

That is a misconception, there is a very good reason why it is not implemented as hardfork.

Besides this is the only smooth way to transition, otherwise we would risk the entire network with a synchronized hardfork, that is too dangerous.

I agree that it represents progress, but I believe it should have been implemented as a hardfork to fix the very "softfork" security issues it takes advantage of and without the "lighter" "full nodes".  However, my point above was that another of your anti-hardfork arguments isn't holding water.

I don't care enough about ETH to have an opinion here, but I already pointed out that not all hard forks are good in an earlier post, I'm only still commenting because not all hardforks are bad.

Exactly, there is no way that a hardfork would cause things to be 50-50, and the market would choose a blockchain to stick with and nothing would happen on the other chain, aside from those who are spiteful and would keep it going.

And thinking that you lose 50% of your money, this guy... I don't think he's done enough research into the past hardforks.

The SEGWIT represents progress and it no way or shape is a powergrab, it actually helps everyone, not to mention the lightning network which can really help bitcoin scale, and improve it in many ways. There are always pros and cons, but overall it's an improvement.

The ETH hardfork was a powergrab, a minority of people decided over a majority issue. Only the small nodes and miners could vote, so individual ETH investors were just spoonfed.

Thats not even a democracy to begin with, its just a tiny elite controlling the narrative.

1) Satoshi was long gone by the time of the event I am referring to.  In fact, he was long gone before I heard of bitcoin.
2) As in war, the winners will write history, and bitcoin will be what they say it is.
3) The segwit soft fork that core is pushing so hard will allow existing full nodes to function, but they won't truly be functioning as full nodes were meant to anymore since they don't have all of the data to validate.  Moreover, the newer version will support a "lighter" "full node" function that has these same flaws by design, while I'm not implying as much, this could be a false-flag-style attempt to reduce network security, so IMHO, your argument regarding power grabs seems to fall a bit short when you turn around and support core.

It's debatable what you call bitcoin, the network can only be what it is if all people agree.

Back then everyone agreed on that, plus satoshi was still present, so I think those improvements were legitimate. Not to mention that bitcoin was worth almost nothing, so it was no big deal.

However with ETH at 1 billion market cap, we have to draw a line, and say that that is enough, and keep the status quo, otherwise powergrabbers will start implementing all sorts of "patches".

A hard fork with 10 billion $ worth of bitcoins is unthinkable.

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4twge6/the_ethereum_hardfork_demonstrates_why_full_nodes/

I myself will become a full node from now on, to show support for Bitcoin Core, join me!

All forks were bug fixes at a protocol level.

History of Hardforks and Rollbacks in Bitcoin https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/history-of-hardforks-and-rollbacks-in-bitcoin-702755

The core devs may want to change the definition of a hard fork in order to make this claim, but it has.  If it had never hard forked, you could still run the original client, but IIRC, at some point an alert was sent out about any client older than 0.5.x not validating blocks after a certain block number due to a fork.  At the time, there were months of notice, but multiple pools were still running 0.3.x and not happy about being "forced" to upgrade.  They weren't forced to, and there was no "core" yet, but they were the economic minority, and even then, without fear-mongering, and even though bitcoin had tanked from $40 to $2, they still wanted to stay on the longest chain.  If an old client won't work anymore due to the change, the fork was hard, period.  That having been said:

Yes, bitcoin has had a hard fork in the past.

No, there won't be two relevant chains.

ETA: relevant is a key word in that second point.  There may be a subset of the 25% or 10% or even 5% (depending on what percentage is treated as "consensus" in any intentional hard fork) who continue to work on the old chain intentionally or otherwise, but even if some exchange validated that short insecure chain, nothing would happen but dumping, because there wouldn't be any demand for it.

Now, regarding hard forks being dangerous, unintentional hard forks (or even intentional ones that don't have "consensus") could certainly be dangerous and lead to separate continued chains for a longer period of time, but "because we're core and we said so" doesn't really have much to do with consensus, and if the right set of pools and exchanges got together and decided they wanted to fork, they could likely do so without the support of any other nodes and ram the change through regardless of what anyone on this forum prefers.